Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Education Act, 1968.
2. Consular Relations Act, 1968.
3. Brighton Marina Act, 1968.
4. Epping Forest (Waterworks Corner) Act, 1968.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Farmers (Budget Increases)

Mr. Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the increased cost to Scottish farmers from the increases in petrol and vehicle licence duties imposed in the Budget.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answers my right hon. Friend gave on 25th March to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith).—[Vol. 761, c. 224.]

Mr. Noble: In view of the considerable increases which will have to be met by Scottish farmers in this way and other ways as a result of the Budget, has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether the farming community will be able to carry these costs until next year, which will be the first chance it will have of recuperation under the Price Review? Will he also consider whether any further action is needed by the Government if the

farming community is to fulfil its functions?

Mr. Buchan: There is no reason to believe that the farming community will be unable to fulfil its functions. All these matters will be considered in the usual way at the annual Price Review next year.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the increase of costs in the agricultural industry as a result of the Budget measures.

Mr. Buchan: I estimate that in a full year the increase in costs to farmers in Scotland as a result of the Budget measures will amount to about £700,000.

Mr. Brewis: Is it not the case that these costs are mostly extra transport costs, which will affect the remote areas to a greater extent? Will the hon. Gentleman try to increase the 100-mile limit in the Transport Bill to at least 200 miles?

Mr. Buchan: I think that that is a matter which should properly be directed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House I should not like to bring this into the field of agriculture, but the total figure is as I gave it, and will be part of the consideration at the Annual Price Review.

Mr. MacArthur: Does the hon. Gentleman's estimate allow for the 50 per cent. increase in S.E.T. which farmers will have to carry for three months as an enforced interest-free loan to the Government?

Mr. Buchan: I know the point which the hon. Gentleman is making. This is the overall estimate of the position.

Mr. MacArthur: Including S.E.T.?

Windblow Action Group (Report)

Mr. Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is now taking on the report from the Windblow Action Group about storm damage to Scottish forests.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I would refer the right hon. Member to the statement I made on 4th April, 1968. Further details have since been announced by the Forestry Commission.—[Vol. 762, c. 619–23.]

Mr. Noble: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I have not myself yet been able to see what the Forestry Commission has said. Will he consider whether the subsidy is given for enough classes of timber so that arrangements for selling it can be adequate? Will he reconsider the question of investment grants to the timber industries? At a time when people are trying to make these industries more efficient, it seems a pity to give such grants only to the Forestry Commission, since this will not give the industries the incentives they should have.

Mr. Ross: The question of investment grants for forestry is not new. Nor is it related purely to the emergency. It would be wrong to relate them to one part of the industry. I will look at the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman and see whether it is covered.

Earl of Dalkeith: Why did it take three months to produce inadequate relief for a vital import-saving industry? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has done does little to help out the industry or the nation in the short term and in the long term?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his assumption that this assistance is inadequate. The provision we are making should meet the need fully. I also want to put right a suggestion that in 1953 much shorter time was taken over this matter. In fact, about the same amount of time was taken. In 1968, however, we did not have such a concentration of windblow as we had in 1953. It was more scattered and the complications of investigation were such that time was inevitably taken up.

Education (Sutherland)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received for the reorganisation of education in Sutherland upon comprehensive lines from the Sutherland County Council; and what reply he has sent.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): Sutherland Education Authority proposed that there should be one six-year comprehensive school and three four-year junior high schools in the county, the former at Golspie and the latter at Dornoch, Lairg and Farr. My right hon. Friend has

approved these proposals, subject to further consideration of the timing and other details of their implementation.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my hon. Friend aware that proposals and counterproposals have been made over the last three years for the reorganisation of education in Sutherland and that there is concern in the county over the delay in reaching a final conclusion in this matter? Is he also aware that there is further concern, arising out of the recently announced Government cuts, that the necessary finance will not be available to bring this difficult situation to a speedy resolution?

Mr. Millan: I do not wish to see a prolonged period of uncertainty. If there has been delay, the responsibility does not rest on me. I do not think the point raised by my hon. Friend will affect the proposals I have just described.

One-Teacher Schools

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy with regard to one-teacher schools in the rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: Any proposal of an education authority for the closure of a school requires my right hon. Friend's approval, and he considers each case on its merits. In general, children are believed to gain social and educational advantages from being taught in a larger school community and in more homogeneous age groups than obtain in one-teacher schools, but other factors such as the condition of existing buildings, the availabilty of teachers, the distances which children would have to travel and the wishes of parents are also taken into account.

Mr. Maclennan: While thanking my hon. Friend for that full reply, and recognising the difficulties in sparsely populated areas of Scotland, may I ask him to confirm that teachers in a number of one-teacher schools, throughout the Highlands in particular, provide very adequate facilities and do an excellent job of work?

Mr. Millan: I have pleasure in confirming that. Any proposals for a closure come to us from an education authority


and are not initiated by us. They are considered on their merits.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the Minister also confirm that it is often an extremely important part of the whole education of the child that, as far as possible, he should be educated in the community in which he is brought up?

Mr. Millan: That is certainly another very important consideration, which we keep in mind.

Hospitals (Fire Prevention)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that some form of fire prevention is available in all hospitals under his control, especially mental and geriatric hospitals and what periodic steps are taken to ensure their maintenance and efficiency.

Mr. Millan: Yes, Sir. All hospitals must maintain adequate safeguards against fire and review them at least twice a year. Their attention has been directed specially to the fire safety problems of mental hospitals, and they have been asked to take account of the difficulties of moving some categories of patients, such as old people, to different levels in the event of an emergency. Detailed arrangements for individual hospitals are the responsibility of the board of management which consult as necessary with the area firemaster.

Mr. Hannan: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind the terrible tragedy at Sheldon Hospital recently? Arising from this, would he not agree that this incident, together with others, has pointed to the great urgency for the receipt of the Holroyd Report, dealing with fire prevention?

Mr. Millan: Following the tragedy at Sheldon, my Department drew the attention of regional hospital boards to this, asking them to look at their current fire arrangements. We are also carrying out a review of our current instructions on fire precautions.

Conveyancing (Halliday Committee's Proposals)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to give effect to the proposals of the Halliday Committee on Conveyancing.

Mr. Ross: The Report's recommendations are still being considered. Its more far-reaching proposals are being studied as part of the examination which I announced last July, of the possibility of major reform of the Scottish system of land tenure. I hope to be in a position to say something further about these matters later this Session.

Old People (Hospital Admissions)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in addition to providing more geriatric beds in Scotland, he will introduce an emergency scheme to allow certain old people, who suffer sudden and severe illness, to be admitted to hospital as soon as possible.

Mr. Millan: It is already well understood by hospital authorities that acutely ill patients should be admitted to hospital regardless of age.

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that this does not happen in all cases? Does he appreciate that many local practitioners would approve of such a scheme suggested in my Question? Is he also aware that many geriatricians in the County of Fife would support a scheme if more hospital beds were provided?

Mr. Millan: These difficulties should not arise, and if they do in particular circumstances I am always very glad to look at them.

Glasgow (Storm Damage)

Mr. Tom McMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland owing to the further storm damage in Glasgow if he will now give special aid to speed permanent repairs.

Mr. Ross: I have at present nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 4th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 619–23.]

Mr. McMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when wind and rain hits the City of Glasgow it becomes a City of fear and misery for many thousands of people? Will he now give realistic Government incentives to attract skilled workers from anywhere in the United Kingdom, so that an onslaught can be made, each weekend, to rid the people of this human misery?

Mr. Ross: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing all that we can to attract labour from all parts of the country to Glasgow. One of the difficulties is that whereas normally we would get the labour from surrounding areas, these areas have also been hit. At present they need every man. Once again I give the assurance that we are not lax in this matter.

Mr. Noble: Does the Secretary of State not remember that when he made his statement he told us that the Minister of State was considering an urgent programme with Glasgow Corporation, and that he would meet members of the Corporation the following day? As a result of that, has he anything more to tell us?

Mr. Ross: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that not only did I see my hon. Friend, and had telephone communication with him, but I saw the Lord Provost of Glasgow on the next day, the Friday. My hon. Friend will be seeing not only officials of Glasgow Corporation but officials of all the authorities tomorrow. I have arranged a series of meetings to ensure not only that progress goes on, but that we are fully informed of what is happening.

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the approximate number of houses in Glasgow which suffered damage in the recent hurricane of a nature likely to endanger life and limb through hazards such as collapsing chimney heads and how many of these were rent restricted houses.

Mr. Ross: The roofs of some 10,000 tenements were damaged, 5,000 of them seriously, but I cannot say how much of this damage endangered life and limb. All the tenanted houses would be either controlled or regulated under the Rent Acts.

Mr. Galbraith: Will the Secretary of State try to find this out, because it is an important matter? Will he consider making a grant where the condition of properties due to restrictions under the Rent Act, made full insurance impossible? Will he consider introducing a grant to reimburse those where the cost of repair is inflated by the extent of the damage throughout the whole City of

Glasgow because it was impossible to get competitive tenders?

Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman has gone very wide of his original Question. Our first concern was to ensure that dangerous buildings were dealt with at once, and this was done.
Concerning the point about the Rent Acts, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the mini-hurricane or great storm did not select rent restricted properties alone, but affected all kinds of properties.

Dundee Corporation Shops (Rent Increases)

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he decided that increases of up to 400 per cent. in shops owned by the Dundee Corporation should not be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Having considered all the circumstances my right hon. Friend did not consider that a reference was called for.

Mr. Doig: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was informed in a Written Answer from his Department that it was not appropriate to refer to the Prices and Incomes Board increases ranging from 100 per cent. to 400 per cent.? If these increases are not appropriate, would he tell us what increases are?

Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend is not being fair to my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State who on 19th February pointed out that the shops concerned had not had their rents reviewed for 10 years, and that, after consultation with the appropriate Departments, we did not think in this case that the National Board for Prices and Incomes should consider the increases.

Dr. Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware that increases of this nature cause tremendous hardship to some of these shopkeepers? If rents have not been increased for a large number of years that is not the fault of the shopkeeper. Would he not agree that the increases should be phased over a longer period of time?

Dr. Mabon: In general that is perfectly fair as a comment. One has to know the precise cases and circumstances.


I am glad to tell the House that the Corporation arranged for 40 of the tenants to talk the matter over with the City Assessor. As a result, 30 rents were reduced from the recommended figure and 10 cases are pending.

Mr. Noble: Will the Minister tell us, bearing in mind the increase in the shop rents to this level, whether he would refer any similar increase in house rents to the Prices and Incomes Board?

Dr. Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman will know that four such proposals affecting local authority housing in Scotland have been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board by the Government.

East of Scotland Water Boards(Appointments)

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the manner in which the officials of the East of Scotland Water Board were appointed; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: According to my information the Board followed the proper procedures in making these appointments.

Mr. Doig: Is my hon. Friend aware that at this appointment meeting the chairman insisted on a ballot vote, and while the ballot papers were being marked he proceeded to talk in favour of one of the applicants? Is he further aware that after the results of the first vote were declared—it was not a decisive vote being eleven, nine, one, and one—there was then a motion made, and accepted by the large majority of fifteen to seven, that the chairman ought not to use his casting vote in the event of a tie? In spite of this he insisted on using his casting vote.

Dr. Mabon: I know that this is not the happiest story in the many discussions that have taken place on water amalgamations. The Board may have taken such a vote but it had no power in statute to do so. The Water (Scotland) Act, 1967, specifically provides that in the event of an equality of votes the chairman shall have a casting vote. I have looked into this matter carefully with my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend, and in the circumstances we believe that the procedures have been per

fectly proper, however unhappy some members of the Board may have been about them.

Forestry Industry (Budget Increases)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the extra costs for the forestry industry in Scotland of the proposed additional licence charges on road vehicles and the increase in fuel duty.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I cannot give a reliable figure.

Mr. Campbell: There has been plenty of time since the Budget. Why has the Secretary of State not worked out the important effects on this vital Scottish industry?

Dr. Mabon: We have held many detailed conversations with the industry and the Forestry Commission, not just as a consequence of the Budget, but as a consequence of the hurricane that hit us. The Commission considered that the extra costs for a normal year would be of the order of £50,000. That is the Commission's view. I should not like to put it as being any more than that.

Mr. Brewis: Is this not yet another reason why the South-West of Scotland should be included in the transport subsidy given by the Forestry Commission, as its costs must have gone up so much?

Dr. Mabon: That is entirely another matter. If the hon. Gentleman would like to table it as a separate question, I should be happy to answer it.

Local Authorities (Budget Increases)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the extra costs to local authorities in Scotland of the proposed additional licence charges on road vehicles and the increase in fuel duty.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: It is not practicable to make an estimate at this stage.

Mr. Campbell: Does not the Minister of State agree that extra transport costs are felt more acutely in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain? Will the Secretary of State be a member of the new inner Cabinet, where he may be able to press this point?

Mr. Ross: Oh dear, oh dear.

Dr. Mabon: In other circumstances relative to part of the Bill we have been discussing, the answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question may have been "Yes". But now the answer is "No". On the second part, my right hon. Friend has distinguished himself by the way in which he has fought for Scotland in all circumstances.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that these changes are damaging not only to local authorities but to all the industries in North-East Scotland which use road transport for the purposes of their business? Would he take steps to do something about the matter?

Dr. Mabon: I do not wish to anticipate the debates on the Finance Bill. But these are fundamentally British taxes—they are not specifically Scottish taxes—and I am sure that they are much more acceptable than they would be if distance were so involved.

Mr. Noble: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that they are totally unacceptable in Scotland? This is the second or third time that this form of tax has added increased burdens to all costs in Scotland.

Dr. Mabon: All taxes add burdens, all taxes are unpopular. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues imposed similar taxes, although—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should pursue the matter with the appropriate Minister if he thinks that I am wrong. My recollection of the Opposition's days in office is that they did the same. Taxes have to be raised in present circumstances and these seem appropriate ways of doing it.

Glasgow (New Roads)

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies he has made of the costs in respect of the City of Glasgow of new road construction on the surface compared with the costs of tunnelling of roads.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend made no detailed studies, because unfavourable underground conditions in

Glasgow are known to make tunnelling costs prohibitive.

Mr. Buchanan: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend does not set these studies in motion, because it is obvious that the solution to our traffic problems does not lie on the surface. When one takes into consideration the replacement of industries, commercial undertakings, houses, and the loss of rateable value to the city, the cost of tunnelling must bear very closely to that of surface roads. I ask my hon. Friend to have another look at this matter.

Dr. Mabon: In the first instance, this is a matter for the Corporation, and we are quite satisfied that the Glasgow Corporation, with its consulting engineers, made a very thorough initial investigation of Glasgow's traffic problems and of the matter raised in the Question when the system of major surface routes which we are building was planned. My hon. Friend will know that London, where excavation is easier because of the London clay, has an advantage over Glasgow, where the strata stretches from running sand to the hardest rock. I may add that the running sand is in Pollok, Cathcart and Hillhead.

Aluminium Smelting Plant

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the siting of an aluminium smelting plant in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9th April to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol 762, c. 231.]

Mr. Monro: But does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we have been getting this type of reply for about six months? Without prejudicing the negotiations, cannot he be a little more forthcoming and tell us what is happening?

Mr. Ross: When the Government have confidential conversations with industries on projects as important as these, one cannot be forthcoming without breaking confidence.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that neither


the Norwegians or any of our E.F.T.A. partners will be allowed to exercise a veto over these very imaginative proposals? Secondly, can he give an assurance that one of these smelters will be in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: It is very, very easy to give facile answers, but we had better contain ourselves with patience. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are fully aware of the interests of Invergordon and the whole of the Highland area, and they are all being taken into account. I trust that they will not be disappointed with the outcome.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great anxiety in Ross and Cromarty over the long delay in coming to a decision, especially since Press statements seemed to indicate that there would be a decision way back in November? Would he do his utmost to ensure that a Government statement is made in the near future?

Mr. Ross: I appreciate that there may be anxiety. I hope and trust that there is confidence in the area which the hon. Gentleman represents, but he probably more than anyone else will appreciate from the discussion which he has had with me the complexity and implications of this matter, not just for Scotland, but for Britain as a whole and the consideration being given to the interests of people outside with whom we have certain links. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no unnecessary delay.

Police (Search Powers)

Mr. Munro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to introduce legislation to provide the police with powers to search for offensive weapons.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will complete his consideration of the proposal that the police powers of search should be extended.

Mr. Buchan: I am aware of the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House and I can assure them that my right hon. Friend will reach his conclusions on the proposal as quickly as is consistent with giving all aspects of the question full and proper consideration.

Until my right hon. Friend has reached a decision the question of legislation does not arise.

Mr. Munro: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the people of Scotland have indicated for a long time that they want action? Why is he incapable of making a simple decision to introduce legislation to deal with offensive weapons?

Mr. Buchan: The question is whether we make the right decision. I am aware that this proposal has been erected as a kind of symbol. It is not necessarily the best method. We have to examine the matter. If I could get another 50 or 100 police in Glasgow, that would be a more effective extension of police powers.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has been swithering and dithering about this problem for some months? Is he further aware that we want a decision quickly and that for every week he delays a decision 70 more people will be maimed or injured by crimes of violence in Scotland?

Mr. Buchan: That is an absolutely shocking statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] It is absolutely untrue to say that we can forecast the possible consequences of a possible useful measure. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this measure will cut out all crime, which is absolute nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has not even been demonstrated how effective it might be. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his statement.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Would my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members and members of the public are becoming tired of this campaign being flogged by political opponents inside and outside the House, which is not in the best long-term interests of public-police relationships and is tending to divert the public mind from constructive approaches to the causes of crime and delinquency?

Mr. Buchan: There is a great deal of truth in that. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend and others that a good deal of constructive work has been done, which has been ignored by hon. Members opposite. For example, the recent Crime-stop Exhibition bought about an immediate 20 per cent. increase in incidents reported, but that would have the effect of


pushing up the statistics and no doubt hon. Gentlemen would be getting on their bandwagon again.

Mr. Noble: But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in spite of what has been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), the desire for a decision to be made is coming, not just from the Opposition, but from the Glasgow Corporation and Glasgow police? It is three months since he told us that he was looking for the right solution, and nothing whatever has happened.

Mr. Buchan: Again the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There was a decision in connection with a request concerning powers of arrest when it was demonstrated that powers of arrest were more considerable than was realised. We are now looking at the second proposition—the power of search. But it is still important to inform the right hon. Gentleman and others that we want to make the right decision. That is most important.

Mr. Lawson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that what he is being asked by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is for the police in Glasgow to have the power to stop and search any person at random in any public place?

Mr. Buchan: It has been a little difficult to know the consequences of the request made. It has been put to me as a power analogous to the power of search under the Firearms Act. On the other hand, it has been argued that the existing powers of arrest will subsume such powers. This is one of the problems which arise. I do not think, however, that they would claim they are seeking the power of random search, even though it may be interpreted in this way by hon. Members.

Mr. Wylie: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be satisfied if he introduced powers, even of a temporary nature, to give this a try? We accept that we cannot in advance say what the effect will be, but we never will know unless we give it a try.

Mr. Buchan: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has corrected the earlier statement of his hon. Friend in this respect. The possibility of an ex

perimental time period is one of the matters I am looking into. There are certain difficulties in this, too. If the figures go down they will not necessarily prove that it was because of these powers. If they go up, further powers may be sought.

Mr. Monro: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Desecration of property

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to enlist the co-operation of the public in an effort to halt the desecration of property by vandals using spray guns; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion. Because one of the main difficulties lies in detecting the perpetrators public co-operation has a valuable part to play in dealing with this and other forms of vandalism and hooliganism. It is, however, best developed by local effort in the areas where the need arises.

Mr. Dempsey: In view of the diabolical desecration of property, both private and public, from owner-occupied houses to churches, does not my hon. Friend believe that it would be better to outline precise plans to local authorities to invite the co-operation of the public, the police and the courts to stamp out this wilful type of desecration?

Mr. Buchan: I am not sure that "diabolical" is the correct word. Sometimes it is the reverse, and there are strong religious connotations. But it is correct to say that we are trying to encourage public co-operation as much as possible.

Nuclear Power Stations (Siting)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the machinery of consultation between his Department and other Departments involved in the siting of nuclear power stations for the future.

Mr. Ross: Before a final decision is made in relation to any particular site all departments concerned are fully consulted, the proposal is advertised, and


where appropriate a public inquiry is held.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Committee recommended this change in the siting of these stations? Is he further aware that hon. Members have been denied access to the Report?

Mr. Ross: That may be so, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been fully considered by the Government. He should bear in mind that even now, after the change that has been announced about the siting, there will be full consideration and a full public inquiry, and local authorities and everyone else will be consulted.

Forestry Commission Caravan Parks (Charges)

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what

Car and Tent or Caravan
Motorcycle and Tent
Tent only


Site




Per night
Per week
Per night
Per week
Per night
Per week



s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Glentrool, Galloway


8
6
57
0
5
6
36
0
3
0
18
0


Glenmore, Inverness-shire

4
6*


3
0*


1
0*




Cashel Cashel and Cobleland, Stirlingshire
6
0
36
0
3
0
18
0
1
6
9
0


Ardgartan, Argyll


5
0
30
0
3
0
18
0
1
0
6
0


*At Glenmore there will be an additional charge of 1s. per person per night for adults and for children over five years of age. A better site is available for an additional charge of 1s. 6d. per night.

Hurricane-Blown Timber (Disposal)

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now ask the Forestry Commission to defer felling licences until the hurricane-blown timber has been partially disposed of.

Mr. Ross: The Forestry Commission has no power to defer felling licences for the purpose the hon. Member has in mind. An appeal has, however, been made for voluntary restraint in felling meanwhile, and the Forestry Commission is giving a lead in this direction in its own woodlands.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the voluntary restriction is not adequate and the matter is closely related to the question of a transport subsidy? Has that subsidy been discussed with W.A.G. and, if so, is

charges will be made in Forestry Commission caravan parks this summer.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: With permission I will publish a table of the charges in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the need for keeping these charges as minimal as possible in view of the increasing number of people who can no longer afford any other kind of holiday?

Dr. Mabon: Yes. The increases are consistent with the prices and incomes policy. At Glentrool there is an increase. At Glenmore the method of charging is so changed as to be difficult to compare with the present system. At the other sites in Scotland there are no increases.

The following charges will be made for Forestry Commission caravan parks in Scotland this summer:

he satisfied that all classes of timber have been included?

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Lady that I have made an announcement about this, the Forestry Commission has earlier issued details concerning the transport subsidy, and we have had questions on it today. As to the question of this not being enough, I have no statutory powers under the present Statutes governing forestry in relation to the withholding of licences in respect of the marketing of timber.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be impracticable to defer felling licences? Is he further aware that the pulp mill at Fort William, for instance, uses only certain sizes of timber which could not be ingathered from wind-blown areas alone and felling licences would be necessary?

Mr. Ross: This is one of the problems facing people with contracts to fulfil, but where arrangements can be made we have asked them to make them.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Tourist Board following the 50 per cent. increase in the Selective Employment Tax; and what reply he has sent.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: None, Sir.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Minister aware that one reason must be because they are still recovering their breath after the latest example of Government ineptitude? Is it a fact that, in spite of the exemptions in the Finance Bill, the Scottish tourist industry as a whole will have to pay more in Selective Employment Tax than it did last year?

Dr. Mabon: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should give the Scottish Tourist Board a little more credit. After all, it is examining the interesting proposal announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for inclusion in the Finance Bill, namely, that in certain parts of development areas there will be a refund of Selective Employment Tax to hotels. This will be debated in the Bill. At that stage the hon. Gentleman may be able to get a quantified answer to the second part of his question. He will also note that the effective rate of Selective Employment Tax on part-time employees is to remain as it is and that this rate is to be extended to all employees over the age of 65. I hope that the tourist trade appreciates these concessions also.

Mr. Eadie: Can my hon. Friend confirm reports in the Press that the Scottish Tourist Board has said that this year it will have the biggest boom ever?

Dr. Mabon: I am told that it had a good year in 1967 and expects to have a very good year this year. In fact, the industry is short of labour and is recruiting very fast. This tax does not seem to be a disincentive.

Mr. G. Campbell: Will the Minister of State now institute an inquiry into the effects of Selective Employment Tax in areas outwith the industrial belt?

Otherwise the Government's limited action will continue to be too late.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Chancellor announced that Mr. Reddaway of Cambridge University would conduct a very searching inquiry into the effects of the tax. We hope that his report will be published this year or early next year. The important point is that if the industry, or any part if it, feels that S.E.T. is a particular offence and not a fair burden to be imposed on it—and all have to accept burdens—it should make its case to Mr. Reddaway when he is making his inquiry.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Highland Development Board about the 50 per cent. increase in the Selective Employment Tax and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Ross: None, Sir.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that presumably the same reason applies as to my earlier Question? What further addition of capital would the Highland Development Board have to invest in the Highlands to meet that now being withdrawn from the Highlands by this increase in Selective Employment Tax?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman puts that down as a Question I will consider it.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the effect of the increases in Selective Employment Tax in Scotland as announced in the recent Budget statement; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Ross: None, Sir.

Mr. Eadie: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any idea of the redistribution effects of the S.E.T. between manufacturing and distribution?

Mr. Ross: Not without notice.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As the right hon. Gentleman sat in on, agreed to, and approved a Budget which brought about an increase in the S.E.T., and in petrol and vehicle licences, all of which


discriminate against Scotland, does not he agree that the reason why he has not received any letters is that people do not think it worth writing to him?

Mr. Ross: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke about the S.E.T. and the benefits which accrued to Scotland with the changes that were announced.

Agriculture and Horticulture

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further estimate he has made of the losses suffered by agriculture and horticulture as a result of the hurricane in January.

Mr. Ross: As was explained to the hon. Gentleman in reply to a similar Question on 6th March an estimate can only be made in respect of the damage to farm buildings and other fixed equipment as revealed by applications under the various improvement schemes. The estimated cost of the work to which these relate is now £1,440,000, but, of course, this figure includes an element of improvement as well as restoration.—[Vol. 760, c. 78.]

Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many farmers suffered serious consequential loss, and that he is expected by the farming industry to take some further action to help those whose building losses were uninsurable? Will he consider cases of hardship, and so give credibility to his claim that this hurricane would be treated as a national disaster?

Mr. Ross: I think the hon. Gentleman should appreciate the position. I am sure that he would not like me to restore assets which were not insurable because of the state of them.

Mr. MacArthur: The nature of them.

Mr. Ross: This is one of the things which form part of the difficulty in relation to any provision. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been very flexible indeed in our administration of the improvement schemes, to ensure that there is no hardship.

Health Centre, Gorbals

Mrs. Cullen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the proposed health centre will be built in the Gorbals area of Glasgow.

Mr. Millan: I hope that it will be possible to begin building towards the end of next year, and that the health centre will be completed early in 1971.

Mrs. Cullen: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the moment there is a shortage of doctors in the Gorbals, and that with redevelopment more properties are coming down, and as these properties also house surgeries, it will be a sad business both for doctors and for patients if this centre is not provided a bit sooner than the end of next year?

Mr. Millan: I know that this has taken rather a long time, but I think that we are now proceeding as fast as we can.
On the question of doctors displaced by redevelopment, I think that it has been the practice of Glasgow Corporation to provide them with temporary premises, and I am sure that if there are any further cases of displacement the Corporation will be glad to follow that practice.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Scottish Development Department to carry out and publish an investigation into the extent to which manufacturing industry operating in Scotland has been placed at a disadvantage in competing with manufacturing industry in England as a result of successive increases in hydrocarbon oil duties and vehicle excise duties since October, 1964.

Mr. Ross: No, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scottish farms which are further from their markets and from their suppliers than farms in England, will inevitably be more severely affected by the increase in licence duties and petrol duty? In view of that, will he give his support to the widespread demand in Scotland that now that the Minister of Transport has been forced to abandon the abnormal load charge, the wear and tear charge should be abandoned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Ross: If that were to happen, it would not affect Scotland beneficially, unless of course the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be a differential rate in Scotland.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Why not?

Mr. Ross: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the burden is uniform. When we consider this against the known and quantified advantages which industry in Scotland have, for instance under R.E.P., Where £40 million a year comes to Scotland, we realise that the picture is quite different.
I further remind the hon. Gentleman that the Toothill Report found no evidence to support the contention that transport costs were a significant additional burden on manufacturing industry in industrial Scotland.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We still have many Questions to deal with.

Scottish Plan

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the impact of the Budget on the fulfilment of the Scottish Plan.

Mr. Ross: By strengthening the national economy the Budget measures will clearly help to promote our economic objectives for Scotland.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That is about the biggest load of moonshine that we have heard in this Parliament. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is about time we scrapped this tatty bit of paper, the Scottish Plan? Will he give serious consideration to the proposal by the Scottish Council of the C.B.I. that Corporation Tax on firms in Scotland should be cut by 50 per cent., and distributions by close companies to the same extent, and the R.E.P. scrapped in exchange?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman had better face the fact that he has been proclaiming disaster for Scotland for years, but thank goodness it has never come about. If he thinks that my forecasts are wrong, perhaps he will look at the statement in the Observer and the Sunday Times at the weekend of what Lord Polwarth said on Scottish industrial prospects in his report on the Bank of Scotland?

Mr. James Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the hon.

Gentleman says that many industrialists in Scotland are doing badly, they are able to give financial support to the Conservative Party, as has now been found out?

Mr. Ross: All I can say is that hon. Gentlemen opposite need all the support they can get. If their financial masters heard them today, and indeed every day, they would change their minds about whether they were worth supporting.

Houses (Industrialised Building Methods)

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the proportion of total houses being built by industrialised building methods.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) on 26th February by my right hon. Friend.—[Vol. 759, c. 254–5.]

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the benefit of industrialised building is not so much in the cost as in the speed of erection? At a time when houses are falling into greater disrepair because of the hurricane and other damage, does not he think he should encourage industrialised building, instead of working against it with such things as the Transport Bill?

Dr. Mabon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comment about the earlier years when we were getting the industrial building sector enlarged. He may be interested in the figures. In 1965 industrialised building accounted for 24 per cent. of the number of houses approved in the public sector. In 1966 the figure was 33 per cent., and in 1967 it was 36 per cent. I am not aware that the Transport Bill is relevant to the future of industrialised building.

Scottish Economy (White Paper)

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now issue a revised version of the White Paper on the Scottish Economy, Command Paper No. 2864, so that the targets and time-scale can be brought up to date.

Mr. Ross: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 6th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 97.]

Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that virtually every figure in that Plan is now out of date? As he told us when it was produced that it was essential that the people of Scotland should know what to do and when to get it done, is it not time that he produced another plan to let us know?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Not all the figures are out of date. I assure him that the public expenditure aspects of this have been well maintained, and are well up to target. They would never have been achieved by the party opposite.

Distilling Industry

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up an inquiry into the potential of the distilling industry as a source of employment in development areas.

Mr. Ross: No, Sir.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent increase in spirit duty could easily reduce the consumption of whisky? Quite apart from any other consequences, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in many areas of Scotland this could have serious implications for employment, particularly where few other jobs are available? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to bring this to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Ross: This has been brought to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by those who are more closely connected with the industry than I am. The hon. Gentleman referred to a reduction in the consumption of whisky. He should bear in mind that 84 per cent. of the whisky output is exported. The increase of half a crown a bottle relates to home consumption. He will realise the limited effect which this will have. I have my doubts about whether this will lead to reduced consumption.

Crimes of Violence

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his further proposals to

deal with the increase in crimes of violence in Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: I have already informed the House of the action my right hon. Friend and I are taking for the prevention of crime and the protection of the public.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: But considering this in the short term, is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the question of the powers of search of the police for offensive weapons has now been under discussion for over six months? Is not this delay utterly inexcusable? Why this lack of decision and leadership?

Mr. Buchan: Despite the earlier questions, hon. Gentlemen still get it wrong. It was only in December—there is no question of a six months' delay—that, contrary to a previous point of view, the question of search was raised with me. This is what we are now discussing.

Mr. David Steel: Has the hon. Gentleman yet had time to consider my suggestion in a recent debate about examining the entry qualifications for the Scottish police force and the way in which some young possible recruits are recruited into the English force because of the different standards of entry?

Mr. Buchan: We have been having a look at this question of education in the police forces. This is important. One of the positive things coming out this month—hon. Members will be pleased at this—is the fact that, for the first three months, there has been a net increase of 83 in the Scottish police force, compared with only 51 for the whole of last year. This is very encouraging.

Building Regulations

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for codifying the Building Regulations for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Amendments of the Regulations under the present procedure should be followed by occasional consolidation under a simpler procedure. My right hon. Friend is considering the possibility of legislation to enable this to be done.

Mr. Baker: While welcoming that statement, may I ask whether the hon.


Gentleman would not agree that it is not before time for steps to be taken because, in some cases, as many as seven Departments have to be consulted, with five sets of plans, before any action is taken? This is not only wasteful but expensive to those who want to develop.

Dr. Mabon: I am grateful to the hon. Member for complimenting us on getting ahead. We have considered the Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments on this matter. We have examined its two suggestions, but it is clear that we will have to consider legislation to do something better in this field.

Scottish Fishery Protection Squadron

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will define the duties of the Scottish Fishery Protection Squadron.

Mr. Buchan: My Department's eight fishery protection vessels are employed primarily to enforce the law relating to methods of sea fishing in coastal waters around Scotland. In addition their duties include ensuring that foreign fishing vessels observe British fishery limits; rendering assistance generally to fishing vessels: and enforcing a variety of regulations, including those prescribing minimum sizes of mesh of fishing nets.

Mr. Baker: Has the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend considered the idea of employing a squadron of hovercraft for this work? If so, when is it likely?

Mr. Buchan: As the hon. Gentleman may know, we have established a committee which is investigating the whole problem of regulation and protection around our coastal waters. I met some of the committee members last week and I know that they are pursuing their inquiries diligently.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I congratulate the Fishery Protection Squadron on its excellent service up to the present, but does the Minister realise that it needs to be increased and also needs an additional air arm?

Mr. Buchan: As I thought I said earlier, the committee is looking at all appropriate matters concerned with increasing the squadron's strength.

Certificated Teachers

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he plans to give to local education authorities regarding the terms of service of certificated teachers who have not registered with the General Teaching Council.

Mr. Millan: None, Sir. The statutory position regarding employment of such teachers is set out in the Schools (Scotland) Code 1956, as recently amended, and their salaries are a matter for the education authority.

Mr. Brewis: Has the hon. Gentleman seen a report from the convenor of one of Glasgow's education committees that all certificated or unregistered teachers in Glasgow are likely to be dismissed? Will he disavow this report?

Mr. Millan: I have not seen the report and therefore cannot disavow it.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is real concern about this, not only among local authorities but among teachers? Will he tell the House, now or in an early statement, what action he proposes under the Schools (Scotland) Code from 1st August this year, and how this will affect unregistered teachers in primary schools and those who are still unregistered in secondary schools?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman knows, I think, that, as from 1st August, unregistered teachers—that is, those who are neither fully nor conditionally registered—will not be employed in primary schools. As to secondary schools, there is a procedure, of which he should be aware, for reference panels.

Convicted Persons (Public Works)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to him concerning the use of convicted criminals for public works in the Highlands; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations on this subject.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the spokesman of the Scottish


National Party recently suggested that difficult tenants and drivers convicted of drunken driving should be sent to the Highlands as a means of repopulating the Highlands? Can he say what reaction there has been from the Highlands to this proposal?

Mr. Buchan: I am not sure of the reaction in the Highlands, but I know what my reaction is, as someone who originated there. The methods which the present Government are adopting for redeveloping the Highlands are the correct methods.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this statement was not by a spokesman of the Scottish National Party but the privately expressed opinion of one individual member of it? In any case, does his Department consider modern theories of criminology for example, those used in Sweden, where certain convicted prisoners are put to work instead of remaining a burden on the State?

Mr. Buchan: When two different points of view are put forward by members of the same party, it is sometimes difficult to know which is the party's point of view. This has been a great difficulty for us all in recent months. I take it that the hon. Lady is repudiating the statement which was made in this connection, but this is not a matter primarily for me. On the second point, we spend a good deal of time considering the progressive work which is done in other countries and there is none which I am not prepared to consider if it would be helpful.

Forth Road Bridge (Tolls Charge)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the need for further industrial development in Fife and the east of Scotland generally, he will take steps to prevent any increase in toll charges on the Forth Road Bridge.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In the review of the finances of the Bridge which my right hon. Friend is making in consultation with the Joint Board he is taking fully into account the needs of economic development, as well as all the other relevant factors.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon Friend recognise that, although we appreciate

the difficulties of the bridge finances, it is nevertheless imperative that the economic development of Fife and the whole of East Scotland should go ahead on the basis set by this Government and that nothing should be done to impede that progress, as I fear an increase in tolls would do?

Dr. Mabon: I accept my hon. Friend's basic point, although I would not accept that any increase in toll would necessarily have that effect. However, I will give an absolute assurance that the need for economic development is a very pertinent factor in this exercise.

Sir J. Gilmour: Is it not a fact that the private motorist is bearing a very unfair burden of tolls on the Forth Road Bridge, compared with commercial vehicles?

Dr. Mabon: In that case, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman directs his complaint to those who formed this financial arrangement and imposed these prices. They are not on our benches. I should not like to prejudice the present discussions with the Joint Board.

Mr. Noble: I do not accept that this was imposed by us. The suggestion came from the Road Bridge Board, which was a very different thing. But does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the advent of this bridge has made an enormous difference to the development of Fife, and that we are all extremely grateful for it?

Dr. Mabon: The answer to the two questions is, "Yes, Sir". As to the underlying point about responsibility, the Government of the day promoted the Forth Road Bridge Order and must accept the responsibility for the financial arrangements which are now proving so embarrassing.

Crime (Young People)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent action and facilities in existence or in course of preparation, have as their objective the reduction of tendencies towards crime among young people and the social regeneration of those young people already convicted of crime.

Mr. Millan: The importance of encouraging young people to develop constructive interests as a way of counteracting tendencies towards crime is


fully recognised by all concerned with the increasing provision of recreation and further educational facilities. Social work both in the family and in the community will be facilitated by the integration of the social work services proposed by the Social Work (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Lawson: Will my hon. Friend look closely into the excellent work that is being done by the Chief Constable of Lanarkshire and some of his associates in fostering excellent relations between young people and the police in the county? Having done that, will he spread the information elsewhere?

Mr. Millan: I am to some extent already aware of that work and I certainly agree that anything of that nature that can be done is extremely helpful.

MALTA (DOCKYARD)

3.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): In the statement, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) made to the House on 3rd April in his capacity as Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs, he undertook to give the House details of the additional financial help which we shall make available to the Malta Government as a result of the recent talks which my noble Friend, the Paymaster General, held with the Prime Minister of Malta about the Malta Dockyard.
The Malta Parliament in the early hours of this morning unanimously passed legislation bringing the Malta Dockyard into public ownership and thus ensured its continued operation. It is the intention of the Malta Government to develop and diversify the dockyard and to make it more competitive.
Under this legislation the Malta Government have acquired the shares of Bailey (Malta) Ltd. against payment of such compensation as may be determined by the Maltese courts, in accordance with Section 33 of the Malta Constitution. Provision is made by the legislation for the transfer 10 a newly established corporation of the assets of Bailey (Malta) Ltd. necessary for the running of the dockyard and certain of its liabilities. The legis

lation also provides for the winding up of Bailey (Malta) Ltd. The price for the assets so transferred, to be paid to the liquidator, will be established by the Maltese courts.
The responsibility for the Malta Dockyard now rests wholly with the Government of Malta. I am glad to say that we are able to make an important contribution towards meeting the cost to the Malta Government of putting their plans into effect. First, we intend to pay over to the Malta Government a sum not exceeding an amount equivalent to our receipts as creditors in the winding up of Bailey (Malta) Ltd. in respect of our loans to the dockyard.
Secondly, in recognition of the importance of the future prosperity of the dockyard, we are allocating for the dockyard £3 million of the £51 million made available to the Malta Government under the financial agreement of September, 1964. The Malta Government will be able, if this should prove necessary, to draw on this £3 million for purposes related to the transfer of the dockyard to Malta, the balance being devoted to the development and diversification of the dockyard. At the end of the 10 year period covered by the financial agreement, an additional £3 million of aid will be provided for development projects. This money will be disbursed by 31st March, 1976. In addition, we intend to provide a feasibility study of the development and diversification of the dockyard. The two Governments are already in contact over this, and we hope that arrangements for the study can be completed soon.
The result that we have achieved is that the Malta Government have been able to acquire the dockyard undertaking and are in a position to develop it for the benefit of Malta. I would like to add my gratitude and congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General for bringing to such a successful conclusion a problem that has for so long created such difficulty to the Governments both of Malta and of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman has made a complicated statement and he will realise that we will want to study it in detail. Apart from that, I am sure that my hon. Friends will be delighted to know that some agreement has been reached; and we wish the people of Malta well.

Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that it is a complicated and long statement, but I thought that the House would like to have the details so that they could be studied.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the problems of the British ship-repairing industry have been taken into consideration in reaching this agreement? Will he go further and give an assurance that this agreement will not damage employment prospects in those parts of our development areas which are particularly dependent on ship repairing?

Mr. Thomson: Questions on this aspect should be addressed to the Minister of Technology or the President of the Board of Trade. It is, of course, impossible to predict in precise terms the effect that this agreement may have on the arrangements for ship repairing in this country. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that the arrangements which I have announced will have no effect on our main naval repair programme.

Mr. Gower: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the action of the Malta Government in some respects anticipates the decision of a court affecting Bailey Ltd. which are closely identified with the South Wales ports? Did he offer help to the Malta Government without making some effort to protect Bailey (Malta) Ltd. from this action?

Mr. Thomson: I am afraid that I cannot accept the assumptions lying behind the hon. Gentleman's question. Litigation is in existence between Her Majesty's Government and Bailey and, in these circumstances, the matter is sub judice and it would be improper for me to comment on it.

Mr. Edelman: What reason does my right hon. Friend have for optimism about the viability of the dockyard which, until recently, was almost totally lacking in orders? Will he further define what he means by "diversification" in this connection?

Mr. Thomson: The dockyard has been particularly affected by the closure of the Suez Canal. It is in this respect that the word "diversification" which I used is, as my hon. Friend no doubt

suspected, of importance. What is suggested is that studies might be made to find out whether the dockyard undertaking, which has some good equipment attached to it, might be diversified or could provide employment in work other than ship repairing.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the total cost to the British taxpayer has been since this episode started with the Admiralty giving up the dockyard?

Mr. Thomson: Not without notice. The main obligations were incurred by our predecessors. What we are now offering to help this new undertaking to develop properly is £3 million of additional aid after the end of the currency of the present agreement in 1974.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the British financial liability, do Her Majesty's Government have a representative on the newly formed corporation?

Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. As I indicated, the arrangements which have now been made mean that the ownership and control of the dockyard will be entirely in the hands of the Government of Malta.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: During the conversations, did the Secretary of State get some assurance from the Malta Government that this dockyard is likely to be operating in future on more efficient lines, and that no guarantee could possibly be given that all the people who have been employed there for some time will always remain in their present jobs? Is he aware that unless this point has been brought home to the people who work in the dockyard, there will be no hope of it becoming a viable proposition?

Mr. Thomson: I very much note the points made by the hon. Gentleman. However, these matters are now the responsibility of the Government of Malta who, from now on, own and run the dockyard.

Mr. John Page: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position of Swan Hunter in connection with the operations of the dockyard? Is he aware that people in Malta and Britain will be delighted at the successful outcome


which has been achieved and which should mean a happy future for Malta from the dockyard point of view?

Mr. Thomson: I am obliged for the hon. Gentleman's final words. The new arrangements are, of course, the result of legislation passed by the Parliament of Malta and are not matters on which I should comment in detail. The legislation sets up a Malta drydocks corporation. That will have a chairman and between four and eight members, all of whom will be appointed by the Prime Minister of Malta. It will be their obligation to decide how, and under what management arrangements, the dockyard is to be run.

POST OFFICE CHARGES

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Roy Mason): With permission, I should like to make a statement about Post Office charges.
My predecessor has already announced that the Government accept the recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes that the Post Office should raise additional revenue through increased charges.
For telecommunications we require additional revenue to help finance the huge capital programme which must be undertaken to improve the service for existing users, and to give the country the telecommunications service it needs. Despite what the Board calls "an impressively fast increase in manpower productivity" this programme cannot be financed from the present charges without an unacceptable fall in the return on capital employed. Productivity improvements and business growth are also insufficient to, offset rising costs in the postal service. This is a labour intensive industry—over 70 per cent. of the costs Lire for labour—and although we are making a major effort on mechanisation there will always be large areas of the job which can never be mechanised.
I accept in principle the Board's recommendations about telecommunications charges. The main changes will be as fellows. The rentals for residential lines will be increased by 10s. a quarter; but there will be no changes in the rentals

for business lines. On charges for trunk calls, I accept the Board's proposals on the amount of money to be raised, but not their proposals for three different rates during a weekday. It is of paramount importance that the charging structure should be readily understood by our customers—and also by the Post Office staff who have to operate it. I propose, therefore, to have a peak rate applying throughout the day Mondays to Fridays: the charges will be increased by about a quarter during this period. A cheap rate, longer than the present one, will apply throughout the night and all day on Sundays: most trunk calls will be cheaper than at present during these times. A new intermediate rate, slightly lower than the present full rate, will be introduced on Saturdays during the day. These changes will be introduced on 1st October.
As the Board recommends, I am increasing the connection charge from a maximum of £10 to a maximum of £20. This charge will operate from 16th April. At the same time I shall no longer require one year's rental in advance from new customers. We shall revert to the former arrangement of one quarter's rental in advance.
New posts: the House knows that we have said that we would introduce a two-tier letter service this autumn. Customers would pay according to the speed of service they want instead of according to the content of their letter, as at present. The two-tier service will start on 16th September. The basic charge for a first class letter will be 5d. and for a second class letter 4d. There will be no increase in charges for remittances and inland parcels.
Registered newspapers are at present sent at the printed rate, but are given the same speed of service as letters. Withdrawal of the concession at a time when postage rates are being raised generally would mean a double increase for newspapers. I propose, therefore, to continue the concession under the two-tier system by giving newspapers the first class service for the second class rate; but I will confine it in future to registered newspapers posted by publishers or their agents.
There will be some changes also in charges for overseas mails.
Full details of all the changes in telecommunications and postal charges will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The Board's Report does not consist only of recommendations about charges. There are many others which I am studying closely, but I would remind the House of the conclusion of the Board's Report:
…we think the very substantial merits of the Post Office should be recognised. In spite of its defects we have been favourably impressed with its efficiency and with its high regard for the public interest.

Mr. Bryan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that, although we congratulate him on his recent promotion, we cannot congratulate him on his maiden statement in that office?
May I ask two questions? What are his comments on the very disquieting report of the Prices and Incomes Board that the Post Office costing system, upon which these huge increases are entirely based, does not provide appropriate data? Secondly, does the Postmaster-General intend in future to be guided by the financial objectives laid down by the White Paper on Nationalised Industries for the criteria of the Government's prices and incomes policy? No private industry would be allowed to raise its prices just to make a profit of 8 per cent.

Mr. Mason: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.
As to his two queries, I am aware of the criticism by the Prices and Incomes Board regarding our costings arrangements, and I assure him that that matter is under review. Secondly, in future this will be a combination of the comments in the White Paper on Nationalised Industries and in keeping with our present prices and incomes and productivity policy.

Mr. J. T. Price: Although I would require to consider the statement and to make comment on it later, could my right hon. Friend tell me at this stage, on the basis of the new revenue which is estimated from these increased charges, how much new capital is required to be generated and what percentage of new capital is required out of current revenue to finance future capital projects?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that question, because most of what we are trying to do now is because of failures of the previous Tory Administration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] On telecommunications the increases should bring in £40 million a year and on posts about £27 million a year. We are intending to spend £100 million on the postal side in the next three years and £1,100 million on investment in telecommunications in the next three years.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Postmaster-General give same idea of the sort of service which will be given in respect of the second class 4d. letter mail? For example, how long does he expect the interval to be between the posting of such a letter in London and delivery in another area? What effect does he think this will have on the cost of living?

Mr. Mason: The change in the cost of living will be·01 per cent. As to reliability, if a 5d. stamp is on the letter—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, a 4d. stamp.

Mr. Mason: If a 5d. stamp is on the letter, we hope to increase reliability and to guarantee early delivery. With a 4d. stamp, in many instances, when posted locally it will still be delivered within 24 hours, but those who put a 4d. stamp on a letter must expect to have a delay of 24 hours as distinct from the first-class service.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: May I wish my right hon. Friend the best of luck in his new job? I think he will need it, but some of us will try to ensure that he gets some. Would he agree that if the record of productivity achieved by the unions in the Post Office were matched by private enterprise we would have no economic problem in the country?

Mr. Mason: I thank my hon. Friend, first, for his good wishes and, secondly, for his helpful supplementary question, especially as it referred to the Post Office engineers, who have been increasing their productivity at the rate of 8 per cent. per year over the past five years, which is something which British industry generally could emulate.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have much


sympathy with him in having been given such a distasteful task in his new job, and we welcome the abolition of the requirement of a year's telephone rental in advance? But is he aware that these charges will have grave implications throughout the whole United Kingdom and will bear heavily on certain sections, such as old people living at home and in old people's hostels? Will he have discussions with the Minister of Social Security on methods of relieving these?

Mr. Mason: I should have thought that the House is now aware that we have established a Fellowship at the University of Essex to examine communications for those confined permanently at home and communications for the elderly. I should prefer to await the outcome of that report. Other Ministers are involved, particularly the Minister of Social Security.

Mr. Strauss: Will my right hon. Friend clarify an answer he gave? In future will letters posted in London, say by 6 o'clock in the evening, whether they have a 4d. or a 5d. stamp, be delivered in London by the first post next day? If not, will it not be exceedingly difficult and expensive to separate those which carry a 4d. stamp from those with a 5d. stamp?

Mr. Mason: As I said initially, in local cases probably those with a 4d., stamp and those with a 5d. stamp will be delivered the next morning, but those with a 5d. stamp will get priority.

Mr. Younger: Is the Postmaster-General aware that announcement of increases of this kind at a time when wages are about to be frozen is staggering? Does he realise that virtually every private industry in the country could adduce exactly the same reasons as he has adduced for raising prices? What would be the result for the economy if that happened?

Mr. Mason: The question is based on a wrong premise. Wages have not been frozen in the past and will not be in future.

Mr. Hooley: Can the Postmaster-General say whether his two-tier letter system can be viable if a substantial proportion of people continue to put a 4d. stamp on their letters?

Mr. Mason: They will now have the opportunity of having either a first-class service for 5d. or a second-class service with 24-hours' delay for 4d.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the Postmaster-General say why the Bell Telephone Co. in the United States last year was able to reduce its telephone charges, and also why the Americans have been able to keep their postal charges stable over the last four years?

Mr. Mason: No, Sir, but the hon. Gentleman has encouraged me to go over there and find out.

Dr. Gray: Should not my hon. Friend be meeting his costs instead of trying to make a profit? In any case, why should his profit be 8 per cent. and not 3½ per cent. or less?

Mr. Mason: It is not a question of meeting costs. In the next twelve months it is anticipated that the posts will lose £12 million, and the increase will offset that.

Mr. Bryan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the public is getting increasingly irritated by Government-owned industries opting out of the Government's prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Mason: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few months ago, if the private sector are going to increase their tariffs they should submit them to the Prices and Incomes Board first. This applies to the nationalised sector as well, and I see no reason why the Post Office should not do likewise.

Miss Herbison: With reference to a previous question, is my right hon. Friend aware that most of the American industrialists in this country are filled with praise for the postal services, particularly those who have experience of the postal services in America?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. The Post Office handles 230 million letters and printed papers per week, and in relation to that number we get very few complaints.

Sir T. Beamish: Since it will probably cost more to deliver a 4d. letter than a 5d. letter, ought not the Post Office to charge 5d. for the 4d. stamp and 4d. for the 5d. stamp?

Mr. Speaker: There is apparently no answer to that question.

Mr. Winnick: Is it intended that the two-tier arrangement for 4d. and 5d. stamps should be a permanent arrangement? Is there not a danger that the 4d. service will become slower and slower in order to encourage people to use 5d. stamps?

Mr. Mason: Permanent at this stage, yes. On the latter point, I shall do my utmost to make sure that does not happen.

Sir H. Harrison: Could I ask the Postmaster-General whether he will think again about the sick and elderly living

POST OFFICE TARIFFS


1.—TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES


1. Changes to operate from 16th April, 1968:—


(a) Connection charges



Present
Proposed



£
s.
£
s.


Maximum exchange line connection charge (up to 3 miles chargeable length)
10
0
20
0


Note:Connection charges for temporary telephone services will be increased proportionately subject to a maximum of £30.

2. Changes to operate from 1st October, 1968:—


(a) Exchange Line Rentals



Present
Proposed



£
s.
£
s.


Residence lines
(per quarter)
(per quarter)


Exclusive
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
3
10
4
0


Shared
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
3
0
3
10

(b) Call Charges

1. The charges for local calls from exchanges without STD (untimed will not be changed.

2. For time calls, the present two rate structure for trunk and local call will be replaced by a new pattern of three rates for trunk calls and two rates for calls as follows:—

(i) Peak charge:


Trunk and Local
…
From 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday (instead of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Saturday as at present).


(ii) Cheapest charge:


Trunk and Local
…
All day Sunday (as at present) and extended up to 8 a.m. on other days.


Local only
…
Saturday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.


(iii) Intermediate charges:


Trunk only
…
Saturday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

3. Details are as follows:

(i) Inland calls



Present
Proposed



6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday
6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday
6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Monday to Saturday and all day Sunday
8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday
8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday
6 p.m. to 8 a.m. Monday to Saturday and all day Sunday


Local Calls from



STD exchanges



Ordinary subscribers
2d. for
2d. for
2d. for
2d. for
2d. for
2d. for



6 mins.
6 mins.
12 mins.
4 mins.
12 mins.
12 mins.


Coinboxes
…
6d. for
6d. for
6d. for
6d. for
6d. for
6d. for



6 mins.
6 mins.
12 mins
6 mins.
12 mins.
12 mins.


Trunk Calls



STD



Ordinary Subscribers
Secs. for 2d.
Secs. for 2d.
Secs. for 2d.
Secs. for 2d.
Secs. for 2d.
Secs. for 2d.


Up to 35 miles
…
30
30
60
24
36
60


35 to 50 miles
…
15
15
30
12
18
30


Over 50 miles
…
10
10
20
8
12

alone in remote country areas and for whom a telephone is essential? I am not thinking only of those who come within the social security provisions but also the next strata of income groups.

Mr. Mason: The House ought to be aware that the Post Office has no section within its Department able to check the validity of claims from old people, old-age pensioners, the limbless and a variety of others needing these services. It is a matter for another Department, the Ministry of Social Security, and we must await the examination that I announced earlier.

The following are the details:

Present
Proposed



6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday
6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday
6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Monday to Saturday and all day Sunday
8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday
8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday
6 p.m. to 8 a.m. Monday to Saturday and all day Sunday


Coinboxes
Secs. for 6d.
Secs. for 6d.
Secs. for 6d.
Secs. for 6d.
Secs. for 6d.
Secs. for 6d.


Up to 35 miles
…
60
60
120
48
72
120


35 to 50 miles
…
30
30
60
24
36
 60 


Over 50 miles
…
20
20
40
16
24


Connected by the Operator
3 mins.
3 mins.
3 mins.
3 mins.
3 mins
3 mins.


Ordinary Subscribers


Up to 35 miles
…
1s. 0d.
1s. 0d.
9d.
1s. 6d.
1s. 0d.
6d.


35 to 50 miles
…
2s. 0d.
2s. 0d.
1s. 3d.
2s. 6d.
2s. 0d.
1s. 0d.


50 to 75 miles
…
3s. 0d.
3s. 0d.
1s. 9d.
4s. 0d.
3s. 0d.
2s. 0d.


75 to 125 miles
…
3s. 6d.
3s. 6d.
2s. 3d.


Over 125 miles
…
4s. 0d.
4s. 0d.


Coinboxes


Up to 35 miles
…
1s. 6d.
1s. 6d.
1s. 0d.
2s. 6d.
1s. 6d.
1s. 0d.


35 to 50 miles
…
2s. 6d.
2s. 6d.
1s. 6d.
3s. 6d.
2s. 6d.
1s. 6d.


50 to 75 miles
…
3s. 6d.
3s. 6d.
2s. 0d.
5s. 0d.
3s. 6d.
2s. 6d.


75 to 125 miles
…
4s. 0d.
4s. 0d.
2s. 6d.


Over 125 miles
…
4s. 6d.
4s. 6d.

(c) Telephone Call Facilities


Facility
Present
Proposed


Alarm Call


Subscriber (STD)
…
…
6d.
2s.


Subscriber (without STD)
…
5d. Residence
1s. 8d. Residence



6d. Business
2s. Business


Coinbox (STD)
…
…
1s.
2s.


Coinbox (without STD)
…
8d.
2s.


Credit card


Call
…
…
No extra charge
6d. fee on each call


Card—first card
…
…
5s. quarter
No change


extra card with same number
No charge
2s. 6d. quarter


Personal Call fee


Full rate
…
…
1s. 6d.
2s.


Cheap rate
…
…
1s.


Transferred charge call fee
3d. (6d. where money has to be inserted in coinbox)
6d. on all calls


Advice of duration and charge
…
Inland Calls—3d.
Inland Calls—6d.



Overseas Calls—No charge
Overseas Calls—2s.


Fixed time call fee
…
…
6d. for single call 
6d. for all calls



5d. each for a series of calls

Temporary transfer and interception of calls


Casual use of facility
…
Each continuous period of up to 7 days—5s.
2s. a day with a minimum



Each day in excess of 7 (subject to a maximum of 5s. for each 7 days)—9d.



Each complete period of



1 month—15s.


Regular use
…
…
…
1 month—15s.
£4 quarter or part of quarter 



2 successive months—£1 10s.



3 successive months—£2


Temporary disconnection of telephone service


Casual rate
…
…
…
5s. per installation for each separate continuous period of disconnection
10s. per exchange line for each separate continuous period of disconnection


Contract rate
…
…
…
1 month—15s.
Contract rate to be abolished 



2 successive months—£1 10s.



3 successive months—£2


Particulars of manually connected trunk calls
1s. for 25 items
2s. for 25 items

Note: Charges for other miscellaneous facilities such as picture calls, night busying, etc., subject to individual agreement, will also be increased, after due notice where appropriate.

(d) Charges for Telephone Directory Entries


Main Directories




Present
Proposed



London Postal Area
Outer London and Provinces
London Postal Area
Outer London and Provinces



£
s.
£
s.
£
s.
£
s.



(per annum)
(per annum)
(per annum)
(per annum)


1. Main entry in heavy type
…
…
1
16
1
7
6
0
£2–£4 according to circulation of directory


2. Extra entry in ordinary type
…

12

9
2
0
1
0


3. Extra entry in heavy type
…
…
2
8
1
16
8
0
£3–£5 according to circulation of directory


4. Entry in a main directory other than that in which main entry is listed


(a) ordinary type
…
…
New service
4
0
4
0


(b) heavy type
…
…
10
0
£6–£8 according to circulation of directory


5. Entry containing supplementary information (additional to 3 words of description allowed free for businesses)—Per word

6

6
1
0
1
0

£
s.



(per annum)


Business Directories



1. Main entry in heavy type
…
…
New Services
8
0


2. Extra entry in ordinary type
…
2
0


3. Extra entry in heavy type
…
…
10
0


4. Entry containing supplementary information, additional to 3 words of description allowed free—Per word
1
0


5. Entry for single-line business
…
4
0

£
s.




(per annum)



Local Telephone Directories




1. Main entry in heavy type

12
1
10


2. Extra entry in ordinary type where there is no corresponding extra entry in main directory

6
1
0


3. Extra entry in heavy type


(a) where there is a corresponding extra entry in ordinary type or heavy type in the main telephone directory

12
1
10

Present
Proposed



£
s.
£
s.



(per annum)
(per annum)


(b) where there is no corresponding extra entry in the main telephone directory

18
2
10


4. Entry containing one or more extra words which do not appear in a corresponding entry in the main telephone directory—For each extra word

3

12


5. Entry in a local directory other than that in which the main entry is listed






(i) ordinary type
New service
 2
0


(ii) heavy type
3
10

(e) Directory Enquiry Service



Present
Proposed


"Vague" enquiry for telephone number


Search fee when information provided by caller is insufficient for number to be found readily: For each search—whether successful or not
No charge
1s.


Enquiry for subscriber's name and address


For each name and address
No charge
1s. in addition to any chargeable call if enquiries are beyond local call area of enquirer

(f) Internal Extension Rentals



Present (per quarter)
Proposed (per quarter)



£
s.
£
s.


Plan 1, 1A, 1B or 1C
…
…
…
…

10

14


Plan 2: Two main stations
…
…
…

10

10


each associated internal extension
…
…

12

14


Plan 3
…
…
…
…
…

16
1
5


Plan 4
…
…
…
…
…

6

8


each additional telephone
…
…
…

9

12


Plan 5 or 5A
…
…
…
…
…
2
0
2
10


Plan 7 or 7A
…
…
…
…
…
1
5
1
15


Plan 8
…
…
…
…
…

16
1
0


Plan 9
…
…
…
…
…
1
0
1
5


Plan 10
…
…
…
…
…
1
6
1
10


Plan 11
…
…
…
…
…
1
0
1
8


Plan 12 or 12A
…
…
…
…
…

16
1
5


Plan 105 or 105A
…
…
…
…
…
2
10
2
15


Plan 107 or 107A
…
…
…
…
…
1
15
2
0

Note: Connection charges are unchanged except that for coupling plan 2 main stations which will be reduced from £4 to £2.

(g) External Extensions


(i) Rental


Present
Proposed



£
s.

£
s.


Mileage Charge
(per quarter)

(per quarter)


Up to 1 furlong
…

15
Up to 1 furlong
…
1
0


Over 1 furlong up to 2 furlongs
…
1
10
Over 1 furlong up to 2 furlongs
…
2
0


Over 2 furlongs up to 3 furlongs
…
2
5
Over 2 furlongs up to 3 furlongs
…
3
0


Over 3 furlongs up to 4 furlongs
…
3
0
Over 3 furlongs up to 4 furlongs
…
4
0


Over 4 furlongs up to 6 furlongs
…
4
10
Over 4 furlongs up to 6 furlongs
…
5
10


And so on by ¼ mile steps
And so on by [...]0s. Steps
Over 6 furlongs up to 1 mile
…
7
0




And so on by ¼ mile steps
…
And so on by £2 steps




Over 1½ miles up to 1¾ miles
…
12
15




Over 1¾ miles up to 2 miles
…
14
10




And so on by ¾ mile steps
…
And so on by £1 10s. steps


Over 3 miles up to 3½ miles
…
21
0
Over 3 miles up to 3½ miles
…
23
10


And so on by ½ mile steps
…
And so on by £3 steps
And so on by ½ mile steps
…
And so on by £3 steps


Over 4½ miles up to 5 miles
…
30
0

Present
Proposed



£
s.

£
s.



(per quarter)

(per quarter)


Over 5 miles up to 6 miles
…
35
0
Over 5 miles up to 6 miles
…
37
10


And so on by 1 mile steps
…
And so on by £5 steps
And so on by 1 mile steps
…
And so on by £5 steps


Up to 30 miles at
…
…
…
155
0
Up to 30 miles at
…
…
…
157
10



No change above 30 miles

Note: These rates are doubled for Plan 9 extension circuits. Where appropriate, plan extension rentals (section (f) above) are additional.

(ii) Connexion Charge


Up to 5 miles
…
…
…
£5
Up to ½ mile
…
…
…
£5



Over ½ mile up to 5 miles
…
£10



No change above 5 miles

(h) Private Manual Branch Exchange Rentals



Present (per quarter)
Proposed (per quarter)



£
s.
£
s.


Other than multiple type


Size:


1+3 
…
…
…
…
2
10
3
0


2+4 
…
…
…
…
3
0
4
0


2+6 
…
…
…
…
4
10
5
0


3+7 or 3+9
…
…
…
…
6
0
8
0


3 + 12 
…
…
…
…
8
0
10
0


3+12 (panel type)
…
…
…
9
0
11
0


3 + 10 or 5+20
…
…
…
12
0
13
0


5+25 (panel type)
…
…
…
15
0
22
0


10+30
…
…
…
…
18
0
25
0


10 + 50
…
…
…
…
22
0
30
0


10+60
…
…
…
…
25
0
35
0


Multiple type: each section
…
…
33
0
42
10


Standby power supply equipment


3 + 12 
…
…
…
…
13
0
9
0


3 + 12 (panel type)
…
…
…
13
0
10
0


4+18
…
…
…
…
14
0
12
0


5+25 (panel type)
…
…
…
15
0
12
0

Note 1: Connection charges and internal removal charges will be twice the proposed quarterly rental, except that for multiple types the connection charge will be four times the quarterly rental.

Note 2: Charges for other PMBX facilities, provided under individual agreement, will be adjusted after due notice.

(i) Private Automatic Branch Exchanges (PABX) Rentals



Present
Proposed



£
s.
£
s.



(per quarter)
(per quarter)


PABX Type 1


4+15
…
…
…
…
…
40
0
55
0


5+24
…
…
…
…
…
50
0
65
0


7+35
…
…
…
…
…
60
0
75
0


10+49
…
…
…
…
…
70
0
85
0


PABX Type 2


4+15
…
…
…
…
…
50
0
70
0


5+24
…
…
…
…
…
60
0
80
0


7+35
…
…
…
…
…
70
0
90
0


10+49
…
…
…
…
…
80
0
100
0


PABX Types 5 or 6


3+10
…
…
…
…
…
45
0
50
0


5+20
…
…
…
…
…
55
0
60
0


Note 1: Connection charges and internal removal charges will be twice the proposed quarterly rental. (At present the connection charge for PABX types 1 and 2 is four times the quarterly rental.).


Note 2: Charges for certain other PABXs and facilities, provided under individual agreement, will be adjusted after due notice.

(i) Private Branch Exchanges—Associated Equipment (Connection Charge and Rentals)



Present
Proposed



Connection Charge
Rental
Connection Charge
Rental



(Maximum)
(per quarter)
(Maximum)
(per quarter)



£
£
s.
d.
£
£
s.
d.


Special additional switchboard for nigh: working connected with a PMBX Additional switchboard
No rental or connection charge
Normal rental and connection charge according to type


For each exchange line and extension connected with such switchboard
2

6
0
2

9
0


For each private circuit, inter-switchboard and external extension connected with such switchboard
2

6
0
2
1
10
0


Note: Where additional switchboard is not in same building a mileage charge per circuit connected is also payable.

(k) Miscellaneous Equipment and Apparatus (Rentals)



Present Rental (per quarter)
Proposed Rental (per quarter)



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Emergency press button on coinbox
…
…
…

4
6

5
0


Breastplate transmitters








Instead of standard transmitter
…
…
…
…

7
6

9
0


Headgear Receiver


In addition to standard receiver:—


Single 
…
…
…
…

3
0

5
0


Double 
…
…
…
…

4
6

8
0


Instead of standard receiver:—


Single 
…
…
…
…

Nil

5
0


Double 
…
…
…
…

3
0

8
0


Breastplate transmitter and headgear receiver combined


In addition to standard instrument:—


With single headgear receiver
…
…
…
…

10
6

12
0


With double headgear receiver
…
…
…
…

13
6

15
0


Instead of standard instrument:—


With single headgear receiver
…
…
…
…

7
6

12
0


With double headgear receiver
…
…
…
…

10
6

15
0


Lightweight headset


No. 1 
…
…
…
…

10
6

12
0


No. 2 
…
…
…
…

13
6

15
0

Extension Bell
Continuous Ringing
Intermitten Ringing
All Types



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Trembler 2½ inch (battery operated)
…
…
…

4
6

3
0

4
0


Trembler 4 inch (battery operated)
…
…
…

6
0

3
9

10
0


Trembler 6 inch (battery operated)
…
…
…

9
0

6
0

10
0


Trembler 12 inch (battery operated)
…
…
…

13
6

9
0
1
0
0


Trembler 6 inch (mains operated)
…
…
…

9
0

6
0

10
0


Trembler 10 inch (mains operated)
…
…
…

10
6

7
6

15
0


Magneto 2½ inch
…
…
…
…
…

—


1
6

3
0


Magneto Cow gong
…
…
…
…
…

—


2
3

3
0


Magneto 6 inch
…
…
…
…
…

—


3
0

6
0


Switchboard internal buzzer
…
…
…
…
…
Nil

5
0


Hooter (mains operated)
…
…
…
…
…

9
0

9
0

15
0

Apparatus used for provision of service to ships in dock


10 yards of cable or part thereof
…
…
…
…

2
3

3
0


Each additional 10 yards or part thereof
…
…

2
3

3
0


Weatherproof plug and socket
…
…
…
…

6
9

6
0


Special Protective Apparatus


Flameproof wall telephone (No. 149)
…
…
…

18
0
1
10
0


Flameproof table telephone (No. 266)
…
…
…
Specially assessed
1
10
0


Flameproof telephone in 700 series
…
…
…
Specially assessed
2
10
0


Protector Box
…
…
…
…
…
…

4
6
Single payment charge



2
10
0


Plugs and sockets (2 of each)
…
…
…
…
New items
1
13
0


Flameproof Relay
…
…
…
…
…
…

18
0


Flameproof Magneto Bell
…
…
…
…
…
1
0
0


Flameproof Mains Bell
…
…
…
…
…
1
13
0


Cable Pyrotenax
25 yards or part thereof 
…
…

11
0


Cable Polythene

11
0


Conduit
1
0
0


Indicators


Drop indicator on continuous ringing bell circuit
…

3
9

5
0


Eyeball or drop indicator
…
…
…
…
…

2
0

5
0


Mains voltage lamp signals on exchange line or extension


Discontinuous
…
…
…
…
…
…

6
0

12
0


Continuous (press button control)
…
…
…








Continuous (switchhook control)
…
…
…
…

11
3

9
0


Additionally, if lamp circuit provided by P.O.
…
…

Nil

7
0


Pendant Telephone
…
…
…
…
…
…

3
9

8
0


Plug and socket instead of normal termination strip
…

2
0

4
0


Watch receiver
…
…
…
…
…
…

2
3

2
0


Loudspeaking Telephones 


No. 1
…
…
…
…
…
…
2
0
0
2
10
0


No. 2
…
…
…
…
…
…
5
0
0
6
0
0


No. 3
…
…
…
…
…
…
3
10
0
4
0
0

Present Rental
Proposed Rental



(per quarter)
(per quarter)



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Footswitch to provide transmitter cut-out
…
…
…

1
6

3
0


Meters at subscribers' premises


Clock type meter
…
…
…
…
…
…
1
0
0

15
0


Answering sets


Answering Set No. 1
…
…
…
…
…
…
8
0
0
6
0
0


Answering Set No. 2
…
…
…
…
…
…
13
0
0
13
10
0


House exchange system; internal extension between HES and PBX.
Same as for main station

15
0


Note 1: Connection charges, where applicable, remain unchanged except charges ranging from £1 to £5 are to be introduced for bells, hooters, buzzers, indicators, watch receivers, mains voltage lamp signals on exchange line or extension and certain protective apparatus.


Note 2: A standard single payment charge of 30s. is to be introduced for certain minor items, e.g. change of instrument, change of apparatus, fitting of wall bracket, etc. Existing charges range from 10s. to 30s.


(1) Inland Private Circuits


(i) External Private Speech-type circuits for continuous use (rentals)


A new tariff structure and new facilities will be introduced. The present arrangement of a basic circuit charge (Tariff S) with extra charges for various improvements will be replaced by four separate tariffs:—


Tariff S1 Basic point-to-point telephone circuit.


Tariff S2 Telephone circuit for switched private network: will include full automatic signalling and dialling over any distance (new facility).


Tariff S3 Telephone circuit for switched private network: signalling as on Tariff S2.


Tariff T Data transmission circuit for transmission speeds of the order of 2,400 bauds.

Tariff S2—Proposed
Rate per annum



£


Up to 1 furlong
…
…
…
…
…
…
4


Over 1 furlong up to 2 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
…
8


Over 2 furlongs up to 3 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
12


Over 3 furlongs up to 4 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
16


Over 4 furlongs up to 6 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
22


Over 6 furlongs up to 8 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
28


And so on by ¼ mile steps

…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £6 steps


Over 3 miles up to 3½ miles

…
…
…
…
…
88


And so on by ½ mile steps

…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £12 steps


Over 5 miles up to 6 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
146


Over 6 miles up to 7 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
168


And so on by 1 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £20 steps


Over 27 miles up to 28 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
586

Rate per annum



£


And so on by 1 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £16 steps


Over 30 miles up to 35 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
670


And so on by 5 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £50 steps


Over 50 miles up to 60 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
920


And so on by 10 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £100 steps


Over 200 miles up to 210 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
2,400


And so on by 10 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £80 steps


Over 300 miles up to 325 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
3,220


And so on by 25 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £100 steps


Over 400 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
3,620

Tariff S3—Proposed


Up to 1 furlong
…
…
…
…
…
…
8


Over 1 furlong up to 2 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
…
16


Over 2 furlongs up to 3 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
24


Over 3 furlongs up to 4 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
32


Over 4 furlongs up to 6 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
44


Over 6 furlongs up to 8 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
56


And so on by ¼ mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £12 steps


Over 1½ miles up to 1¾ miles


…
…
…
…
90


And so on by ¼ mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £10 steps


Over 2 miles up to 2¼ miles

…
…
…
…
…
108


And so on by ¼ mile steps

…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £8 steps


Over 3 miles up to 3½ miles

…
…
…
…
…
148


And so on by ½ mile steps

…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £16 steps


Over 5 miles up to 6 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
216


And so on by 1 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £20 steps


Over 14 miles up to 15 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
395


And so on by 1 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £19 steps


Over 25 miles up to 26 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
604


And so on by 1 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £16 steps


Over 30 miles up to 35 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
720


And so on by 5 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £50 steps


Over 50 miles up to 60 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
970


And so on by 10 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £100 steps


Over 200 miles up to 210 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
2,450


And so on by 10 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £80 steps


Over 300 miles up to 325 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
3,270


And so on by 25 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £100 steps


Over 400 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
3,670

Note: In the case of circuits on Tariffs S2 and S3 over 15 miles in length, the annual rate will be reduced by £35 for one termination and £70 for both terminations where signalling and dialling equipment is not provided by the Post Office, subject to a minimum charge of £328 for circuits on Tariff S2 and £395 for circuits on Tariff S3.

Tariff T—Proposed


Up to 1 furlong
…
…
…
…
…
…
10


Over 1 furlong up to 2 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
…
20


Over 2 furlongs up to 3 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
30


Over 3 furlongs up to 4 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
40


Over 4 furlongs up to 6 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
54


Over 6 furlongs up to 8 furlongs
…
…
…
…
…
68


And so on by ¼ mile steps

…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £14 steps


Over 1½ miles up to 1¾ miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
108


Over 1¾ miles up to 2 miles

…
…
…
…
…
120


And so on by ¼ mile steps

…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £10 steps


Over 3 miles up to 3½ miles

…
…
…
…
…
180


Over 3½ miles up to 4 miles

…
…
…
…
…
200


Over 4 miles up to 4½ miles

…
…
…
…
…
218


Over 4½ miles up to 5 miles

…
…
…
…
…
235


And so on by 1 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £18 steps


Over 30 miles up to 35 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
760


And so on by 5 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £60 steps


Over 50 miles up to 60 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,060


And so on by 10 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £120 steps


Over 100 miles up to 110 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,650


And so on by 10 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £100 steps


Over 200 miles up to 210 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
2,630


And so on by 10 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £80 steps


Over 300 miles up to 325 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
3,450


And so on by 25 mile steps
…
…
…
…
…
…
And so on by £100 steps


Over 400 miles
…
…
…
…
…
…
3,850

(ii) External Private Speech-type Circuits for continuous use (Connection Charge)


Present
Proposed


Up to 5 miles
…
…
…
£5
Up to ½ mile

…
…
£5



Over ½ mile up to 5 miles
…
£10



No change above 5 miles


(iii) Private Speech-type Circuit provided for non-continuous use (rental)


Present


Charged at proportions of Tariff S for whole circuit, according to daily period of use, regardless of number of days' service per week.


Proposed


Two part method of charging:—


(i) Permanently rented circuits from premises to serving exchange at Tariff S1.


(ii) Periods of use of main links (serving exchange to serving exchange) as shown below:

(m) Telex Service



Present
Proposed


Connection Charge


Each major item of apparatus
…
…
NIL
£10


Reconnection Charge
…
…
NIL
£1


Additional Rental for Excess Mileage


Initial 30 miles radial distance from nearest telex centre
No charge
No charge


Then for each mile between 30 and 75 miles
£2 p.a.


Then for each mile between 75 and 200 miles
£1 10s. p.a.


Then for each mile in excess of 200 miles
…
£1 p.a.

Call Charges



Dialled seconds for 2d.
Connected by operator (3 minutes)
Dialled seconds for 2d.
Connected by operator (3 minutes)


On same telex centre or between centres up to 15 miles apart
60
6d.
60
6d.


Between centres up to 15–35 miles apart
…
60
9d.
60
6d.


Between centres up to 35–50 miles apart
…
30
1s.
30
1s.


Between centres up to 50–75 miles apart
…
20
1s. 3d.
30
1s.


Between centres up to 75–125 miles apart
…
15
1s. 6d.
15
2s.


Between centres over 125 miles apart
…
15
2s.
15
2s.

Telex Call Office Charge
Present
Proposed


Charge additional to normal telex call charge for each call
1s.
2s. 6d.


Internal Removals


Each major item of apparatus
…
…
Cost of work
£10


Miscellaneous Telex Apparatus


Charges for miscellaneous telegraph apparatus subject to individual agreement, will be increased after due notice.

(n) Wireless Telegraphy Licences (other than Broadcast Receiving Licences)


Aeronautical Ground Station
…
…
£1
£1 10s.


Aircraft
…
…
…
…
£1
Not exceeding £2 10s.


Amateur (Sound)
…
…
…
…
£2
£3


Amateur (Television)
…
…
…
£2
£3


Amateur (Sound Mobile)
…
…
…
£1
£1 10s.


Induction Communication
…
…
…
£2 (5 years)
£3 (5 years)


Light Station
…
…
…
…
£1 (5 years)
£1 10s. (5 years)


Model Control
…
…
…
…
£1 (5 years)
£1 10s. (5 years)


Police and Fire
…
…
…
…
£2
Not exceeding £3


Private Mobile Radio
…
…
…
£3 each first two stations.
£4 each first two stations



£2 each subsequent station
£2 5s. each subsequent station


Private Mobile Radio (limited period)
…
£1 per licence
£1 per station


Radar (Land) Station
…
…
…
£1 (5 years)
£1 10s. (5 years)


Radio Beacon
…
…
…
…
£1 (5 years)
£1 10s. (5 years)


Ship
…
…
…
…
£2
Not exceeding £4 10s.


Ship (Receiving only)
…
…
…
£1
Not exceeding £2 10s.


Testing and Development


Radiating
…
…
…
…
£2
£3


Suppressed Radiation
…
…
…
£1 (5 years)
£1 10s. (5 years)


Training Establishment
…
…
…
£2 (5 years)
£3 (5 years)


Other licences
…
…
…
…
Various
Generally increased by 50 per cent.

II.—INLAND MAIL SERVICES


(including services to the Irish Republic)


(Changes to operate from 16th September, 1968)


4. LETTERS



Fully Paid Letters
1st Class Letters
Printed Papers
2nd Class Letters


Weight Not Over
(Present)
(Proposed Under Two-Tier)
(Present)
(Proposed Under Two-Tier)


lb.
oz.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.



2

4

5

3

4



4

6

5

5

4



6

8

9

6

6



8

10
1
0

7

8



10
1
0
1
3

8

10



12
1
2
1
6

9
1
0



14
1
4
1
9

10
1
2


1
0
1
6
2
0

11
1
4


1
2
1
9
2
3
1
0
1
6


1
4
2
0
2
6
1
1
1
7


1
6
2
3
2
9
1
2
1
8


1
8
2
6
3
0
1
3
1
9


1
10
3
6
4
0
1
4
Maximum


1
12
3
6
4
0
1
5



1
14
3
6
4
0
1
6



2
0
3
6
4
0
1
7



3
0
5
6
6
0
Maximum



4
0
7
6
8
0



5
0
9
6
10
0



6
0
11
6
12
0

III.—OVERSEAS SURFACE MAIL SERVICES (Except Parcels)


(Changes to operate from 16th September, 1968)



Present
Proposed



s.
d.
s.
d.


5. COMMONWEALTH LETTERS


Not over 1 oz.
…
…
…
…
…
…

4

5


Each additional oz.
…
…
…
…
…
…

1½

2


6. COMMONWEALTH POSTCARDS
…
…
…
…
…

3

5


7. PRINTED PAPERS—REDUCED RATE


(i) Posted singly


Not over 2 oz.
…
…
…
…
…
…

2

2


Over 2 oz. and up to 4 oz.
…
…
…
…
…

3½

3


Each additional weight step
…
…
…
…

1½

3



(per 2 oz.)
(per 4 oz.)


(ii) Posted in bulk


First lb.
…
…
…
…
…
…
1
0½
1
0


Each additional lb.
…
…
…
…
…
…
1
0



(Less 5 per cent. rebate)

V.—Other Overseas Mail Services


(Changes to operate from 16th September, 1968)



Present
Proposed



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


9. MAXIMUM COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE


(i) Registered packets
…
…
…
…
…
…
2
18
0
3
8
0


(ii) Uninsured parcels
…
…
…
…
…
…
4
13
0
5
9
0


10. INSURANCE FEES (for letters, boxes and parcels)


For initial limit of compensation
…
…
…
…

3
2

3
2



(£24 limit)
(£28 limit)


For each additional step in scale of limits of compensation
…


2


2



(per£12)
(per £14)


11. CUSTOMS CLEARANCE FEES


Letters 
…
…
…
…
…
…

1
6

1
9


Parcels 
…
…
…
…
…
…

2
6

2
9


12. STORAGE FEE (for incoming parcels awaiting clearance)


After free storage for 28 days
…
…
…
…
…
—

1
0



(per day)

AGE OF MAJORITY (LATEY COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): As soon as Parliamentary time can be found, the Government hope to introduce legislation to implement most of the recommendations made by the Latey Committee on the Age of Majority, whose Report (Cmnd. 3342) was presented to Parliament in July 1967.
The Committee considered the law relating to minors in England and Wales and unanimously recomended that most of the present limits on full capacity in civil law should be removed for persons between the ages of 18 and 21, and nine out of 11 members of the Committee recommended that all such limits should be removed.
Having carefully considered the Committee's proposals as well as the debates in this House on 20th November and in another place on 22nd November, 1967, the Government have decided that it would be right to reduce the age of majority to 18 and in general they propose to follow the recommendations of the majority of the Committee.
The legislation to be introduced will reduce from 21 to 18 the age at which a person has full powers to enter into a binding contract, to give a valid receipt and to hold and dispose of property. The minimum age for making a will, for acting as a trustee or personal representative, for acquiring an independent domicile and for consenting to the giving of blood will also be 18. The need for parental or court consent to the marriage


of a person between the ages of 18 and 21 will also be removed; and the powers of the courts to make adoption orders, to award custody of and access to children and to make them wards of court up to the age of 21 will be similarly curtailed. Certain other amendments to the law affecting minors will also be made, including a statutory power for a minor of 16 or over to consent to medical or dental treatment including blood tests.
Certain of the recommendations of the Report will not be covered by this legislation: any changes in the law of taxation, for example, will have to be dealt with in a Finance Bill. Moreover, some of the more detailed recommendations are still being studied. The intended legislation will not affect the age of voting, which was outside the Committee's terms of reference and concerning which the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law has recently reported.
The House may also wish to know that, in accordance with the recommendations of the Latey Committee, my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, has asked the Law Commission to consider the Committee's proposals for substantive changes in the law of infants' contracts and the structural changes in the courts which they suggested. These two topics fit conveniently into the Commission's first and second programmes.
The Latey Committee's inquiry was, of course, confined to England and Wales: in many respects minors in Scotland are already free from the restrictions which apply to young persons under English law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is at presnt considering whether legislation is required to amend the law of Scotland in relation to minors.

Sir P. Rawlinson: The Attorney-General will doubtless appreciate that the Bill will be complex. Will he assure the House that it will be printed in good time before we have a debate and before it is presented to Parliament? Can he tell us when it might be presented to Parliament? Thirdly, does he appreciate that, if the Bill contains the proposals he has outlined, the Bill will deal with property and marriage at the age of 18? The Speaker's Conference has recommended the age of 20 for voting,

and the Law Commission is invited to look at infants' contracts and the courts. Would it not be much more sensible law reform for all these matters to be put together in a comprehensive Bill?

The Attorney-General: I do not think so. With regard to the last part of the submission of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the recommendations of the Latey Committee on the matters about which legislation is proposed are self-contained and are a measure of law reform which I think is necessary and for which there is a good deal of demand. I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that there will be abundant time for consideration of a Bill before it is debated. I cannot give the date of the expected publication of the Bill, but it will not be for some time.

Mr. Mendelson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a general welcome to the announcement he has made on behalf of the Government, and that many young people have already expressed their opinion that they hope that the Government will act in this way? The younger generation will be very disappointed that the Government have not announced at the same time that they will bring the voting age into line with the age recommended by the Latey Committee for the other heavy responsibilities. The Government will have to address itself to the question. Young people who are to be able to conclude a contract in law and to do all these other things, surely ought to have a right to take part in political decisions.

The Attorney-General: The Government are addressing themselves to the question, but the process of examination has not yet been completed. It is not long since the Report of the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law was received. It is obviously a very serious and important matter which requires further consideration.

Mr. Grieve: While the House will appreciate that the Attorney-General is unable to go into all the fiscal consequences of the proposal to reduce the age of majority to 18, will he nevertheless assure us that, in the light of his statement, there can now be no question of aggregating with the incomes of their parents the incomes of children over 18?

The Attorney-General: As I said, any matters affecting taxation are matters for the Finance Bill and are not within the ambit of the statement that I have made or the proposed Bill arising from the Latey Committee's Report.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is nothing sacred about the age of 18? Will he bear in mind, contrary to what another speaker at the Speaker's Conference has said, that it was by an overwhelming majority, with only one dissentient, that we decided that the age be 20, and that, when considering a situation in which people decide their own personal affairs, it may be right to settle on the age of 18, but that when considering the general corporate affairs of the country, the age of 20 is more sensible?

The Attorney-General: While I appreciate that there is nothing sacred about the age of 18, if I may say so, there is nothing sacred either about the age of 21 or 20. But there are important public considerations arising which I venture to think need further examination by all parties in the House.

Mr. Lubbock: If every other restriction on the affairs of a young person between the ages of 20 and 21 is to be removed, from the giving of blood to buying a house, including contracts entered into by them which are covered by legislation passed by this House, would it not be totally unacceptable for the Government to introduce legislation without removing the restrictions on young persons to take part in political activities? Will he announce the Government's conclusions on the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law, before the recommendations reach this House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the legislation include provisions laying down that boys press-ganged into the Forces by rosy advertising may opt out at the age of 18?

The Attorney-General: On the hon. Gentleman's last question, while I do not accept his colourful language, the Government have announced that they are studying whether a satisfactory solution can be found to meet both the future defence needs of the country and the principles underlying the Latey Committee's

recommendations. As to the hon. Gentleman's general submission, as I say, the proposals that I have made are an important self-contained measure and what I think is a much needed change in the law which can be done conveniently without necessarily involving consequences about the voting age. As to that, as I say, the matter is an important one for the future of this democracy. The Government are giving it urgent consideration, and the factors which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will no doubt be considered both by the Government and by the House when this important matter comes to be debated in due course.

Mr. James Griffiths: Like my hon. Friends, I warmly welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. Bearing in mind that it is now over 20 years ago that this House decided for the purpose of our social insurance scheme that persons should be treated as adults both for contributions and for benefits at the age of 18, and bearing in mind, too, that for the purposes which my hon. and learned Friend has outlined again they will be treated as adults, does he not agree that the case for the vote at the age of 18 is overwhelming?

The Attorney-General: I can only repeat what I have said several times. This matter is under active consideration by the Government.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—agree that these very important and sweeping changes would be better made on one occasion by United Kingdom legislation?

The Attorney-General: The law of Scotland is quite separate from that of England on this matter, and it seemed appropriate to deal with the law of Scotland quite separately.

Sir Knox Cunningham: And Northern Ireland.

Dr. Miller: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Government are to be congratulated on realising the increasing part that young people play in the affairs of our country and that this step will be warmly welcomed in the knowledge that the


giving of responsibility does a tremendous amount towards making responsible citizens? But will he not look closely at the point made by other hon. Members about giving the vote to young people at the age of 18?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the first part of my hon. Friend's observations, and I have already dealt several times with the second part.

Mr. Gower: In imposing new contractual obligations, duties and rights on young people of 18, will the Government take account of the fact that many of them are not in receipt of permanent incomes, and will they take account of such matters as parental responsibility? Will all these points be dealt with in the forthcoming legislation?

The Attorney-General: As I have said, the problem of infants' contracts will be referred to the Law Commission. The legislation will be confined to the matters which I mentioned in my statement.

Mr. Whitaker: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the principle of no taxation without representation, and about the unfairness of young people being expected to give their lives for their country in times of war without being able to vote on the policies relating thereto? Does he not consider that it is in the interests of society that young people have a democratic right to express their opinions rather than being frustrated when they feel strongly about matters of policy?

The Attorney-General: The Latey Committee did not have the voting age as one of its terms of reference. My statement has been confined to matters arising out of the Latey Report. I can only repeat that the considerations which my hon. Friend has mentioned will be borne in mind by the Government in coming to a decision on the voting age.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Can the Attorney-General say when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will complete his consideration and bring forward his proposals? Is he aware that the Secretary of State may be very able so far as consideration is concerned, but is not so noted for his ability to come to a decision?

The Attorney-General: I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's observation. The alacrity with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes his decisions and acts is well known to all parts of the House. But I am afraid that I cannot say when his proposals will be brought forward.

Mr. Strauss: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the Latey Committee specially reported that the arguments which appeared to it to be overwhelming in recommending a reduction of the age to 18 for the various matters with which it was concerned did not apply to other matters such as voting, and that Mr. Speaker's all-party Conference, after very long and careful consideration, decided by a majority of 24 to 1 that 20 was the most appropriate age?

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is very important that it should be realised as a matter of fact that the terms of reference of the Latey Committee excluded its being in a position to deal with this problem. That is the real truth of the position.

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of information, not a point of order.

BALLOTS FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 29TH APRIL

The following hon. Members were chosen in the Ballot:
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.
Mr. Tom Boardman.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter.

BILL PRESENTED

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

Bill to amend Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, and to make further provision as to agreements. conflicting with Free Trade agreements, presented by Mr. Anthony Crosland, supported by Mr. M. Stewart, Mr. Shore, Mr. Benn, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Dell, read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

CUSTOMARY HOLIDAYS

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: I beg to move:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend to all persons employed the right to enjoy the benefits of Customary Holidays.
These holidays refer to those of Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Whit Monday, and August Bank Holiday.
The subject of customary holidays has been raised previously in debate, mainly on the point as to whether the number of such holidays should be extended or whether there should be an alteration in the date on which one or other of the holidays should be held.
I was particularly interested in the arguments on an extension in the number of Bank Holidays made by the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) during a debate on the summer holiday season initiated by the hon. Gentleman the then Member for Honiton on 12th February, 1960. Both showed that in the matter of occasional holidays Britain lags sadly behind almost every other country in the world. I would quote from the reply to the debate by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade:
The more we can extend the universality of holidays with pay, the more we shall all be pleased. It is essential for the wellbeing of people that they should get away from time to time and have a change of scenery and companions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 898.]
Mr. Speaker, I should say that there are very few who would not agree with that proposition, and it is with the question of universality that my Bill is concerned. I am not asking for any increase in the number of customary holidays but only that such holidays as there are should be universally enjoyed. In my reading of various debates on this subject, whether hon. Members were urging an extension of the number of such holidays or even a change in their timing, it seemed to me that it never occurred to them that there were numbers of people who not only did not have the benefit of holidays already established but also had no entitlement to them.
This impression was confirmed by a spot inquiry which I made among a number of hon. Members of this House, all of whom were of the opinion that there was a statutory requirement on the part of the employer to allow these holidays. Indeed, so widespread has the custom of having these holidays become that there are very few members of the general public who have any doubts on this subject. The actual situation is that unless the employee is so covered in the terms of his contract of employment he has no absolute right to the enjoyment of the customary holidays but in fact most people are covered, either by Wage Council awards, trade union or even individual agreements. This leaves a minority—and I have no idea just how many—who because of weakness in their power of bargaining are at a disadvantage in this matter compared with other workers.
My own interest in the subject was aroused by the case of a constituent which I brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour where an employee in a betting office was so handicapped. It may well be that in other betting offices the employers are more generous; but this in no way alters the basic point that there is no inherent requirement for the employer to make any concession. It could be argued, and justifiably, that these people should join their appropriate trade union, thus putting themselves in a stronger bargaining position, and this I would accept. But in certain situations even the attraction of trade union membership is not always a complete answer and it is for Parliament to protect those who are too weak to protect themselves.
During the course of correspondence with the Minister on the matter to which I have referred I was informed:
In this country terms and conditions of employment are settled between employers and employees and either party to the contract may at any time give due notice to terminate the contract of employment and may also propose the substitution of a fresh contract with different terms.
That may well be so, but it is not the complete picture in so far as the Government can and do interfere in the process, as in the case of those industries covered by wages councils where agreements on wages and conditions are made mandatory on the whole industry; and it is


not unknown for the Government to have some say in wage and salary negotiations under its incomes policy. There is, too, a danger that in times of possible recession in any particular industry, employers might be tempted to present new terms of contract of employment which would have the effect of cancelling a previous agreement in the matter of holidays. This Is not likely to happen but it is a possibility.
Under these circumstances, I see no reason why it should not be made a statutory obligation upon all employers to allow their employees the enjoyment of customary holidays. It goes without saying that in certain occupations, public utility services, sport and entertainment and indeed even in betting offices, it is necessary for work to be done at such times. But this should not in any way debar those who are so engaged from being compensated by having time off in lieu or by additional payment.
Mr. Speaker, this Measure is an attempt to remedy an anomalous situation in which a number of people find themselves at a disadvantage and I would hope it will receive general acceptance by all sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arnold Shaw, Mr. John Ellis, Sir Barnett Janner and Mr. William Robinson.

CUSTOMARY HOLIDAYS

Bill to extend to all persons employed the right to enjoy the benefits of Customary Holidays, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

Orders of the Day — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have posted up, as is my wont, my selection of Amendments. The first debate will take place on Amendment No. 1, in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson).

Clause 1.

APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES, OATHS OF OFFICE, ETC.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5 after 'area', to insert '(other than the City of London)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we shall be taking Amendments No. 2, in page 1, line 18 at end insert:
(2) The justices of the peace for the City of London shall continue as heretofore to have the jurisdiction and powers, as provided by the charters of the said City.
No. 3, in page 2, line 33, leave out from is ' to mayor ' in line 34.
No. 4, in page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (7).

No. 5, in page 3, line 45, at end insert:
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall apply to the justices of the peace for the City of London.
No. 7, in page 9, line 4, leave out Part I.
No. 10, in page 14, line 7, leave out paragraph 10(1) or of'.
No. 11, in page 14, line 8, leave out from `above' to end of line 10.
No. 12, in page 14, line 16, leave out in relation to the City or'.
No. 13, in page 14, line 22, leave out by the Corporation or'.
No. 14, in page 14, leave out line 32.
No. 15, in page 16, column 3, leave out lines 50 and 51.
No. 16, in page 18, leave out lines 2 and 3.
No. 17, in page 18, line 49, leave out onwards' and insert justices'.


No. 18, in page 18, leave out lines 50 to 55.
No. 19, in page 20, leave out lines 12 to 14.

No. 20, in page 20, leave out line 17 and insert:
In section 15(10) the words a clerk to a stipendiary magistrate, a clerk to a metropolitan stipendiary court and'.

No. 21, in page 20, leave out line 27 and insert:
In section 21(7) the words `a clerk to a stipendiary magistrate, a clerk to a metropolitan stipendiary court and'.

No. 22, in page 20, leave out lines 29 to 37 and insert:
In section 27(10), in paragraph (c), the words a clerk to a stipendiary magistrate, a clerk to a metropolitan stipendiary court,'; in paragraph (d) the words from ' and ' onwards, and paragraph (e).
No. 23, in page 20, column 3, leave out lines 50 to 54.
No. 24, in page 21, column 3, leave out lines 11 and 12.
No. 25, in page 21, leave out lines 13 to 18.
No. 26, in page 21, column 3, leave out lines 31 to 34.
No. 27, in page 21, column 3, leave out lines 38 and 39.
No. 28, in page 22, line 8, leave out from ' 22 ' to ' sub-paragraph in line 10.
No. 29, in page 22, line 11, leave out from beginning to paragraph ' in line 13.

Sir P. Rawlinson: It is certainly a pleasure that, in the exercise of your discretion, Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House we can debate this issue and reach a decision in the House. Because we are going to have now a debate upon this Amendment and the consequential Amendments, it is not and will not be necessary for my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself to move the Motion with regard to Third Reading; because what I want to do is to have this issue debated in this House and decided on the Floor of this House.
As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of these Amendments is the exclusion of the City of London from the Justices of the Peace Bill, which was a Bill to whose general principles no objection was taken in any quarter of the whole of the House. But it was a fact that on the Second Reading hon. Mem

bers from all sides of the House, in accepting and commending the Bill, criticised the inclusion of the City of London in its provisions because, as it was expressed by them, it is a very special case; and it was felt that the City of London should not be put into a Bill one of the main provisions of which was the exclusion of ex officio justices.
I would say right at the beginning that one of our difficulties in dealing with a Bill such as this is that the Minister who is in charge of a Bill here in the House of Commons, as we all appreciate, is not the Minister whose Bill it is; under our procedures, the Attorney-General is the agent of the Lord Chancellor, because the Law Officers do not promote legislation. They are here to advise the Government and the House on matters of law. The Minister whose Bill this is is the Lord Chancellor. We are, therefore, at a certain disadvantage in not being able to direct our arguments to the man who can on his own initiative agree to the Amendment. Our advocacy must be very much secondhand. Only in another place can people speak direct to the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the Attorney-General will ensure that the Lord Chancellor has an opportunity to study the arguments which we shall advance. They were foreshadowed on Second Reading and dealt with shortly in Committee.
It would make a farce of Parliamentary proceedings if it was thought that the prestige or authority of either the Government or of the Minister whose Bill this is was involved in the question whether the Amendment is accepted or defeated. I ask the House, as I have previously, to have a straightforward argument concerning what is the best system for the administration of criminal justice in this very special part of the United Kingdom. The type of arguments which should be advanced are arguments as to the merits of the proposal to change a system which will work well for centuries.
The Bill proposes the removal of the ex officio justices of the peace from the roll of active justices of the peace. Hon. Members in all quarters of the House think this to be sensible. There are about 2,000 of these gentlemen. They have been elected to the mayoralty of their boroughs. They hold for one year a very special place of honour and dignity. Then


they return to their membership of the council and to serving the community in the field. They have no inclination towards judicial work. They have had no training. They are very much birds of passage. They are not there to sit as justices of the peace, although in the past they have done so purely by virtue of their office.
The City of London is a very different case. There are 26 aldermen there. They are elected from the Common Council. As one of their qualifications they must be thought to have the ability to perform the judicial function. That is a prime consideration for their election to aldermen. They are required to study textbooks. They are required to know about procedure before they sit. They are required to visit prisons, detention centres and borstals. They are required to attend a minimum of six sittings of the court in the City of London. They are required to attend outside the City of London at another court of summary jurisdiction. They are required to take instruction in the treatment of offenders and the system of probation. They take part in the same type of sentencing courses as those instituted by the Lord Chief Justice for High Court judges and those holding judicial office.
Moreover, the City is the centre and the home of the most famous criminal court in the country—the Old Bailey. Aldermen have regular meetings and regular contacts with their Recorder and with the Common Serjeant, who are two senior judicial officers administering criminal justice in the City of London. In all these respects, and particularly in this last respect, the City is unique. We therefore start from the premise that this is a well trained magistracy, well versed in the exercise of their duties.
I turn to consider, apart from their training, how well they carry out their duties. Their industry in performing their duties is exampled by the fact that in 1966–67 the Lord Mayor of the day sat at 76 different court sittings. On an average the Lord Mayor sits on more than 70 days. When the Lord Mayor comes to be the first magistrate of the City of London, he has had seven or eight years experience of the bench. Aldermen attend, on average, 30 court sittings a year. Some aldermen attend 44 court sittings.

Therefore, these people are wholly different from ex officio justices who may sit once or twice during their year of office and who have not had any experience before they become the mayor of their borough.
As to efficiency, I repeat the figures which were given in Committee. Whereas in 1950 the City of London magistrates dealt with 5,554 cases, a decade later the number had increased by 116 per cent. to 11,675 cases, and in 1967 they dealt with 19,025 cases, an increase of 350 per cent. since 1950.
To judge whether these aldermen are doing their work properly and efficiently, it is right to turn to the record of appeals to see whether those who have, as it were, supervision over the exercise of their duties are satisfied with the way that they have performed them. Since 1945, only 11 out of the scores of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of cases with which these aldermen dealt went to the Divisional Court by way of case stated. Of that 11 only 5 were successful. In 1967 these aldermen dealt with more than 19,000 cases. If their administration of justice was unsatisfactory, if it was unacceptable, if there was much complaint about it, would not that be reflected in the number of appeals? There were twenty appeals out of 19,000 cases. Only 6 of those appeals were allowed. None denies the very impressive record of the court sitting in the City of London. The statistics show an efficient and successful service.
This is corroborated by the various bodies who have had to review and examine the record of service of these aldermen. In 1948 the Royal Commission thought it right to leave the City alone. In 1966 the Lord Chief Justice, who sees far more of the criminal work in general, and who observes much more closely the work of the City of London in this respect than any of us, even the Attorney-General or the Lord Chancellor, congraulated these aldermen on the performance of their duty. He supported them and asked that second thoughts prevail over this matter.
On Second Reading and in Committee the Attorney-General himself fairly conceded the high standards. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, if a court is unsatisfactory professional


bodies often receive representations. Indeed, they make representations themselves. From my experience both as a Law Officer and as a member of the Bar Council I know of no complaints by the Law Society about the handling of cases by these aldermen. I have heard of representations against other courts, but never against this court.
I turn to the question of cost. We must not overlook what the City provides with regard, for instance, to the Central Criminal Court. We must not forget the burden it bears. I know not whether it will be content to go on bearing that burden if the duties of aldermen on the bench are to be discontinued. As it is, the City produces £16,000 for the court of summary jurisdiction. This is a well manned, efficient, industrious, well-trained and successful administration of criminal justice. It meets with the approval of the appellate courts whose duty it is to supervise it. There has been no complaint against this form of administration of justice. It provides this system of administration of justice at low cost.
It is now proposed to make a change. A cumbersome system will be imposed which will involve drafting in by appointment many other justices of the peace. If they are fit and able to be justices of the peace, as I am sure they will be, why are they not being used in the areas where they are needed and where they live? Why must they be brought in to the City from the outskirts of London, or wherever it is, to do a task that is already being done? It is a most inefficient proposal and extremely extravagant of court time. If it is carried out it will be at increased cost to the community.
4.30 p.m.
On Monday I said of certain proposals of the Government that they constituted cock-eyed law reform. Here we are having change for the sake of change, a change that is merely some kind of gimmick. Even if the system suffers it will still be done, because I understand that the Government's case is that although the system works successfully and there is no complaint about it, it offends against two principles. They do not ask whether it is a pragmatic and

sensible system but whether it offends against those two principles. First, they say that justices of the peace should be drawn from different sections of the local population, and, second, that it is not right that a person should be tried by a lay justice sitting alone.
But the City of London is unique in its geographical position and its population. The character of the City is wholly different from that of any other place in the country. The resident population consists of the caretakers and wives of barristers-at-law. People come into work in their scores of thousands every day and depart every evening. Therefore, the local population as such is very scarce.
It may be thought that the present Bench is very well suited to deal with the many different cases it tries. One should have a bench designed for a particular purpose, so why not have this one in the City of London? Is it really necessary in the depths of the country—in the mountains of Wales, for example—to have a merchant banker or a stockbroker on the bench? Of course not. The present Bench of the City of London is suited for the best administration.
I do not know how much it is thought that there should be younger men on the bench, but aldermen have sat at the age of 35. They include Sir Bernard Waley-Cohen. It is said that there are no present wage-earners on the bench, but there are many who have been wage-earners, including Sir Robert Bellinger himself.
It is also said that there are no women. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred in Committee to Lady Donaldson—that "rare bird" as he said in a particularly felicitous phrase. She may be a rare bird, but she may come to the aldermanic bench and there is no reason why she should not. Female stipendiary magistrates were pretty rare birds. I remember Miss Sybil Campbell, a redoubtable magistrate to appear before, and Miss Collins. There are very few female stipendiary magistrates in London now, so if that argument is right we should change that situation and have many more women magistrates.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: Hear, hear.

Sir P. Rawlinson: We know the hon. Gentleman's views on the rarity of birds.
I turn to the second principle, that cases should not be tried by one justice alone. The City of London magistrates are not in the same position as justices of the peace elsewhere in the country. They are very special and well-trained expert justices. In Committee the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a comparison of the crime figures in the City and in Newport. I noticed that he did not give us the number of appeals. I do not know if Newport's record on the number of appeals can compare with that of the City of London which I gave earlier.
There have been no complaints about the City of London system. If it were so objectionable there would have been complaints. There are very few juvenile cases, and it is not worth changing the whole system just for them. Compared with the figure of 19,000 which I gave for 1967, there were only 158 juvenile cases, and such cases are sent to Tower Hamlets. Because of the special character of the City—its emptiness at night—there are also very few domestic cases, and they are sent to Bow Street.
Therefore, when we look at the whole argument we see that the onus is on the Government to satisfy the House that change is needed. If they fail to do that, they should leave the system alone instead of tinkering with it for the sake of doing so.
At this time the last people who should be ignoring the question of cost are the Government. We are told that the extra cost will not be substantial, but how can that be so? If the system is to be changed there must be the appointment of many additional magistrates. It may be necessary to appoint 70 magistrates, and give them allowances and subsistence under the Bill and meet the financial loss they may sustain. There will also be the need for changed accommodation. Who will pay for arranging the accommodation for three magistrates as opposed to one? Above all, there is the question of time. There is no doubt that if there are more justices than the one aldermanic magistrate more time will be spent in hearing cases.
So much for the two principles. There is still the argument that it is anomalous

to have the City of London unique and different from the rest of the country. But the Bill bristles with anomalies, as those who were in Committee and discussed it on Second Reading know only too well. We had what my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) referred to as the well-worn argument about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but still his position is an anomaly. If there should not be any anomalies in the law, why leave some and get rid of others? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has no more knowledge than anyone else of who to appoint as a magistrate, and would not pretend to have any. He is busy on his tasks in the North-East, but he is here left with that power. We should take that out of the Bill if we want it all so neat and tidy and sensible. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) says, "Yes". He has had plenty of opportunities to move an Amendment, but he has not taken them. I understand that he has preferred to remove one anomaly and leave others.
The position of the Minister whose Bill this is, the Lord Chancellor, is anomalous. The Attorney-General, who was described as a stag at bay only two days ago, is an anomalous stag at bay. Here he sits discharging his duty of looking after Bills for the Government and then he goes away to another room and discharges quasi-judicial public duties. We accept that as a perfectly satisfactory position. If something is anomalous but works we should leave it as it is, I hope that those who always want to replace things with something different will consider very carefully before starting to make changes for the sake of change.
We were told in Committee that this was no attack on the position of the City of London. I hope not. It is the financial centre of a great, complex organisation and is the greatest exporter there is. The fabric of the City has been an organic growth, and it has a system and prestige which has built up. Whatever any hon. Member opposite may say, one has only to go abroad and engage in the real business of nations to know the prestige of the City.
The magistracy is part of the fabric, and the magistracy of the Lord Mayor over the peace of the City is associated


with the work and position of the City. I believe that this change will do damage, and I would regret that if it happened leave aside all those matters such as the ancientness of the courts or the position of the magistracy. I am trying to deal with the case on merit. The present position has stood the test of time and should be allowed to remain. We see no argument against its efficiency or success. There are no complaints by practitioners or by people who live or work in the City.
The Magistrates' Association, which has been anxious to remove ex officio justices, would, one might have thought, have joined with the Government in destroying this administration of justice by the City aldermen. The Association is known for its advocacy and energy in promoting improvements in the administration of the law. But the Association passed the following resolution in council:
That this Council is of the opinion that the main criticisms applicable to other ex officio appointments to the Bench do not apply to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, and asks for official reconsideration of their special duties, experience and a record.
That is what the magistrates have said about this proposal.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will listen to reason and to the arguments on their merits and that he will tell us that he undertakes to urge Caesar in another place to reconsider and withdraw the proposals. If he gives that undertaking, I will withdraw the Amendment. If not, when we return to power—and it will not be long before it happens—we shall do what we can, in the circumstances of the time, to return to the ancient, successful and efficient system of administration of criminal justice in the City of London.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was described on Monday as a stag at bay and I appeared as one of the hunters. But I make it clear that I am a fully paid-up member of the League against Cruel Sports, and I support my right hon. and learned Friend in what he is attempting to do in this Bill.
The closing remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) reminded me of our recent

debate on defence but went much further than the Opposition did on that occasion. Then they wanted to take Britain back to the days of the British Empire. Today they would take it back to the days of the Middle Ages and assure us that that is what they will do if they return to power.
The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that this system works well and, therefore, we should do nothing about it. If that argument were generally accepted on a worldwide scale, we could say that all sorts of régimes in the world work well, but that does not mean that they should not be improved. Because they work well does not mean that they work democratically. The onus on right hon. and hon. Members opposite is not to say, "It works well, so why change it?" The onus on them is to answer the question of why one area of the British Isles should have a substantially form of bench from other areas.

Mr. Ian Percival: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House of any system which works better and which we should put in place of this one in the City?

Mr. Oakes: I am developing the point. This scheme will in fact work better because the magistrates will, I hope, come from all sections of the community instead of from the very narrow band from which they are presently drawn. That band must inevitably be narrow because the constitution of the Corporation is so designed. It has been said that there is no attack here on the Corporation. I wish there were. I cannot see why we should have the situation in which, in the centre of our capital city, the inhabitants, unlike everyone else in the country, have no opportunity of electing their own council. At least the Bill is giving them the opportunity of having magistrates drawn from all sections of the community, and that is essential.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman is getting the argument back to front. The population does elect its representatives. What is more—not that I think that this is necessarily a good thing—it so happens that it elects its justices of the peace because it elects the aldermen. Under the


Bill, they will lose that power of election, which is the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Oakes: We are at cross purposes as to whom we regard as the inhabitants of the City. The Corporation is not elected by the ordinary inhabitants as other corporations are.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Is the hon. Gentleman unaware that the greater part of the City is uninhabited at night, when the population largely consists of caretakers? Does he desire the the justices of the City to be elected by caretakers alone?

Mr. Oakes: This is where the two sides of the House are at cross purposes. The representation of the caretakers, the firemen and the barristers' wives who have been mentioned as living there, ought to be on the basis that applies in the rest of the country. It should be done on the basis of where one lives and not on one's position in a certain organisation. This Bill will allow the City of London to have the same substantial system of justice and of the appointment of justices as other parts of the country.
The onus is on the Opposition to say why there should be a separate system of justice in London. The figures given by my right hon. and learned Friend in Committee were amazing. He gave the comparison with Newport because it is the next town on the statistical list to London and the similarity of the cases coming before the magistrates of Newport and in the City is astonishing.
The vast majority of cases coming before magistrates' courts concern motoring offences. In the relevant period, over 6,000 motoring cases came before the City justices. If there were a drawbridge around the City, so that the caretakers or those who go into the City to work and subsequently become aldermen were an island community, they would have the right to this peculiar sytem of appointment of justices. But anyone from any part of Britain may drive through the City and yet, if he is tried for an alleged motoring offence, he will encounter a completely different form of justice.
He will find a justice sitting alone, which would be impossible anywhere else in the country unless he were a stipen

diary magistrate. The magistrate will be sitting on the bench by virtue of his occupation and not because of his knowledge of the community or of motoring. Indeed, he may employ a chauffeur and never drive a car himself. Even if it is not true of him, this may well be the feeling of a motorist who appears before him.
Obviously, since people go into the City from all over Britain, they should meet the same form of justice and the same type of bench that they would meet anywhere else in the country, and the magistrates sitting on that bench should be appointed in roughly the same way as the magistrates anywhere else in Britain.
The argument was made out on Second Reading and to some extent in Committee, that the type of cases coming before the magistrates in London were peculiar in that they had regard to fraud, very big company cases and that kind of thing. Those cases are as rare as diamonds in the City court. The vast majority of the work done there is ordinary run-of-the-mill magistrates' court work.
There is another point made about matrimonial and juvenile courts. The juvenile and matrimonial cases cannot come before the City of London magistrates because the court is not competent in law. It has the power to take such cases but because it has only one woman justice, insufficient women justices to take cases—[Interruption.]—there is no woman at all. I am sorry, there is a woman councillor. Because there is no woman sitting on the bench the court cannot take these cases, and they have to be shunted out to another court. The efficiency of the court is in question, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend resists to the full this mediaeval attempt by hon. Gentlemen opposite to retain this peculiar system of justice in one part of the British Isles.

Mr. John Smith: I will not detain the House long, because the arguments both for and against these amendments have been heard from both sides of the House both on Second Reading and in Committee. I would say to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), who says that ours is a mediaeval argument, that one could certainly construct quite a good case on historical grounds for the Amendment; but the case that I put


forward is a practical one, free from all the doctrinal promptings which have made it necessary for us to put down this Amendment.
The Attorney-General said at the outset of the debate on the Bill in Second Reading that its object was to improve justice. If this is so, it is surely up to the Government, which wants to change a system which they themselves say works very well, to prove that a change is necessary. Yet the Government have had to fall back on double negatives, which I always suspect. They say there is no reason why the change should be for the worse. The Attorney General said in Committee:
my noble friend the Lord Chancellor has readily agreed that the City magistrates maintain a high standard—and I concur with that view—but he does not accept that there is anything inherent in the present system which makes it better than that operating in the rest c f the country … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 2nd April, 1968; c. 35.]
but it is better, in the only respect which can be proved, namely, in the matter of statistics; there have been only six successful appeals out of 19,000 cases in the last year for which figures are available. The hon. Member for Bolton, West said very rightly that it is never an argument not to alter something because it works well. One should always approach institutions with a view to making them work even better. But is it practicable to alter a system which works well, in the hope of improving on a record of six successful appeals out of 19,000 cases? It is also a cheaper system than what is proposed.
One of the arguments advanced, which this Amendment seeks to rebut, is that of uniformity. I regard uniformity as a detestable argument.
It is the negation of all improvement. All human advance depends on non-uniform people, people who depart from uniformity. However we cannot attain uniformity. For example, Scotland, as usual, is in a special and peculiar position. The ex officio justices there are not to be abolished. It is true we may be able to thrust uniformity on the City justices but we cannot make the City cases uniform. It is misleading to compare the City of London with Newport. Of course the run-of-the-mill cases will appear the same, statistically, but if one

examines them case by Case, there will be very serious divergencies which make the presence on the Bench of people with the qualifications of aldermen very advantageous.
Nor is it sensible to treat all ex officio justices throughout the country uniformly, because City justices are not the same as other ex officio justices. They do not serve for short periods, and they are industrious and well trained. It is much more important, not that the City justices should be uniform with other justices, but that they should be suited to the cases with which they have to deal, as the aldermen are. The Attorney-, General said on the Second Reading:
Some anomalies undoubtedly exist. There cannot be total unanimity in our administration of justice, which is the product of a long historical process and practices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol 757, c. 286.]
One cannot put it better than that. Uniformity is therefore both undesirable and unattainable.
The second argument was that the Bench should be drawn from different sections of the local population. The Attorney-General mentioned wage earners, which was a curious concept in relation to the City. I think that he doubted whether any alderman had started as a wage earner.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): No, I doubted whether he was a wage earner when appointed an alderman.

Mr. Smith: I do not know whether we have to draw the old-fashioned distinction between wages and salaries. I am certain that practically every alderman must have set out as a salary earner and that very many of them still are. I do not believe in this ever-more fashionable division of the population into more and more classes, categories and sections, All people, particularly when it comes to judging their fellow men, are united or divided by countless threads which have nothing to do with their purchasing power, or the way in which they live. Every man is an individual with an identity of his own, and aldermen are just as representative of all sections of the City when it comes to trying cases as anyone else. What is more important is that people should have confidence in them. Confidence can only be measured by the


number of appeals from their decisions, and this is extremely low.
To treat City Justices like all other ex officio justices is simply prejudice. I do not say it is prejudice against the City, or even political prejudice. But for once can we not be practical about this? The system in the City works extremely well and there are a great many things in the country at the moment which do not work well to which we might better turn our attention. I do not argue that the system ought to work well, nor as to why it works well: but it does. Can we not therefore have the good sense to accept the Amendment and leave the system alone?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Whitaker: I shall be very brief. The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) and the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) deployed their arguments with their customary elegance; but I would submit to the House that they founded them on a total fallacy in that they failed to adduce that there is any nexus whatsoever between the criterion for being an alderman in the City of London and the qualifications for being a justice of the peace. This is as illogical and indefensible as if every Member of this House hereupon constituted himself a judge.
The provisions of this Bill are in no way unfair to those aldermen who are fitted to be magistrates. They are not excluded from consideration for appointment as justices of the peace, and it would be totally unfair that they should be. But it is an extraordinary and indefensible idea that because a person is fitted to be an alderman—and is elected upon a very strange and anomalous franchise—he should therefore be fitted to be a magistrate. For example, there must be many people in the City of London who can spare the time to be a magistrate but not the time to act as an alderman as well. Similarly, there must be others who are interested and qualified to act as justices of the peace in the City but who, for various—perhaps very good—reasons, would not touch politics with a barge pole. The two interests may in some cases overlap and, if it is not impolite to the present aldermen—and I have no wish to be so—it has been said

in the Committee that their experience could be useful in trying fraud cases. But surely it is less than just to the remaining inhabitants of the City of London to say they are either unable to provide a suitable bench of magistrates or to forbid them to do so.
I would like to take the two examples which have been mentioned. If those who moved this Amendment could tell the House of a single example of a woman who ever has been a magistrate in the City of London, or who is one now, we might feel their arguments had slightly more logic. Why should juvenile court cases and domestic cases have to be sent a considerable distance purely because of this inadequacy of the present City magistrates bench? Why should the ratepayers of Tower Hamlets, an infinitely poorer part of London, have to pay the bill for cases emanating from the City of London because of the anomaly which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is seeking to defend? Why should witnesses have to travel a substantial distance to Bow Street or Tower Hamlets purely because of this historical accident?
I believe that in many cases—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment will recognise the truth of this from his own experience—the presence of a female magistrate is of considerable value when there is a bench of justices sitting. Whether or not justice is done as well as possible at present in the City, there may be female defendants who feel that justice is not being seen to be done when they know it is impossible, as it is at present, for there to be any female magistrate before whom they can appear.
Lastly, I would urge upon the House that it is an essential precept of our presently constituted form of magistracy that there should be a variety of occupations represented on the Bench—that there should be, as the Prayer Book says, "all sorts and conditions of men". As the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster will know, there is a variety of occupations in the City—including poorer people who reside there while richer businessmen are able to leave after their day's work and go to their larger houses in the suburbs or elsewhere in London.
I would urge upon the learned Attorney-General that the selection for


this representation of a variety of outlooks on the bench should not be made on a basis of party politics, which would be quite indefensible. I do not say this in any party spirit, but I think it is utterly wrong that the selection of magistrates in this country is made by an attempt to balance party representation, because this disenfranchises as regards magistrates' benches throughout the country—as they are at present disenfranchised in the City of London—those who belong to minority parties, or are robust enough to be independents—of which there are far too few in present-day politics—and people who for some very good reason do not wish to involve themselves in party politics. Many such people, because they do not spend their time on partisan politics, are eminently suited to be magistrates ipso facto.
To conclude, I hope that there will be represented on the Bench, not just of the City of London but throughout the country, all manner and varieties of sex, occupation and outlook—provided of course they all qualify to a high enough standard to be justices of the peace.

Sir David Renton: When the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Ben Whitaker) made his point about party politics not entering into re presentation on magistrates' benches, I felt a great deal of sympathy with him. I think it is right that in normal circumstances all sections of the community—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I may have been at fault because I think I ought to have interrupted the hon. Member at that point and indicated that on this Amendment we are dealing only with the City of London. I do not think that we should pursue the point of political representation on benches generally.

Sir D. Renton: I respectfully agree, but as the hon. Gentleman had been allowed to make his point I could hardly resist the temptation to comment upon it, because I agree very much with him. However, I will not pursue it further.
The other serious point, which is truly relevant to the argument, concerned the City of London not having its own juvenile court. There is a reform which perhaps the Government might like to introduce without doing what they are

trying to do in this Bill. They could quite easily make that reform and not do what in my opinion is something which they should try to avoid at this stage.
May I say that I have had the unusual experience of being at the receiving end of some of the work of the City of London Justices Court. I must make it plain that the reason is that for some 15 months ending last December I sat from time to time as a commissioner at the Old Bailey. I believe I am the only Member of Parliament ever to have done so. I do not complain that the Government decided that I was an anomaly in that capacity because I was a Member of this House—I hope for no other reason. Just before Christmas that anomaly was removed by adding commissioners of the Central Criminal Court to the Schedule in the House of Commons Disqualification Act. I do not complain of that at all: on the contrary, I ought to express my gratitude for having been allowed to sit as a commissioner for those 15 months for it enabled me to witness from the inside the excellence of the administrative arrangements for handling the vast mass of work at the Old Bailey, much of which originates in the City of London Justices Court, which is presided over by the Lord Mayor and on which he and the 26 aldermen are magistrates.
From that personal experience I can testify to the exceedingly high quality of that important part of the work of the City Justices Court which consists in committing cases for trial at the Old Bailey. Indeed, although I tried a number of cases committed by the City Justices, some of them fairly complicated, I do not recollect a single irregularity in any of the committal proceedings with which I had to deal. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom said, 'the City of London renders a vital and highly important service by making itself responsible for the administration and maintenance of the Central Criminal Court, which is, by Act of Parliament, the criminal division of the High Court. In pointing to the great service performed by the City Justices Court, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to the low cost of it to the Exchequer. The same is true of the work done at the Central Criminal Court, at low cost to the Exchequer, but at quite


considerable cost to the City, which it does not grudge.
It is worth mentioning that the City Corporation has started on a programme of rebuilding the Central Criminal Court at a cost of £1—million. The cost to the City last year was £185,000. This financial year it will be nearly £500,000. When all 18 courts are built, the cost will be over £600,000 a year to the City. Surely it is a poor reward to the City for performing this great service for the State that the Lord Mayor and aldermen should be stripped of their authority as magistrates.
One wonders why the Government have tried to impose their will in this way. The argument of logic is so flimsy that it does not stand up to examination. The removal of anomalies is sometimes justified, but to make that so the anomaly must be a bad one which does not work. If the Bill removes an anomaly, which for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster I somewhat doubt, it is an anomaly which works well.
I fear that this change is perhaps being made for the worst of reasons. It is being made because the Government do not understand and, therefore, do not respect and sympathise with one of our established institutions, however spendidly it may work. Change for the sake of Socialism is sheer vanity and is not good enough, and I hope that the Attorney-General does not agree with it. Today he has a good opportunity to show that he does not believe in change merely for the sake of change or for the sake of Socialism.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I am entirely in favour of anomalies. When anomalies work, and when no serious criticism can be made of them, why should they not exist? All my time as a junior member of the Bar was spent on the Wales and Chester circuit. I have always been devoted to that circuit, like the Attorney-General. Yet, in theory, one can say that the circuit system is an anomaly. The justification for it is that it works well, and those with experience of it are devoted to it.
In a country like ours, which has a long history, there are bound to be thousands of anomalies. How dull and uninteresting our life would be if they did not exist. Take the law itself. The only argument against the City of London retaining its peculiar and unique system of administration of summary justice is that it is an anomaly. On Second Reading, the Attorney-General paid tribute to the standard of the administration of justice in the City, which he said was high.
5.15 p.m.
Take the position of the Lord Chancellor, the man who is initiating this change. Is there a more anomalous position in this country than that of the Lord Chancellor? We have an independent Judiciary, yet who is the head of it? The head is the Lord Chancellor, who is the Government Leader in the House of Lords. He sits on the Woolsack in the position of Speaker. If the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite are right, what justification is there for the position of the Lord Chancellor? The justification is that the system works well and no one has any serious criticism of it. It has been tested by years of experience. Therefore, even though it is anomalous, we should have it, because it works well.
Cannot exactly the same argument be advanced about the administration of justice in the City of London? I have no connections whatever with the City. I have no particular interest in it, save in the fact that the general reputation of the administration of summary justice in the City is high. Not only the present Lord Chief Justice, but his predecessor, Lord Goddard, paid great tribute to the standard of the administration of summary justice in the City. There are so many things in this country which do not work and which are costly that to concentrate time on abolishing something which works well and against which no practical criticism can be levelled is the height of stupidity.

Sir Lionel Heald: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that an even more startling anomaly than the Lord Chancellor is the Law Officers of the Crown, who are responsible for the most important tasks in administering justice? That does not prevent them


from being politicians and members of the Government.

Mr. Hooson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. I will not encourage him to reminisce, but I am sure that what he says is absolutely right.
There is a general revolt in this country against the process of trying to eliminate all anomalies, even though they work. In my own country of Wales and in Scotland there is a great revolt against the attempt from the centre to insist on uniformity in everything. I do not think that anyone in Newport, which has been given as an example, would argue that it was comparable with the City of London. The City of London is in a unique position. We are a commercial country. The centre of our commerce is the City of London. It is unique in the sense that people who work there during the day do not generally spend their nights there—at least not, to any good purpose. As the system has worked well and costs the country nothing, why should it not be allowed to continue?
I should have thought that the onus of proof in this matter was entirely on the Government. When a system works well, and when, apart from theoretical criticism, no one can point to any practical criticisms of it, is there not a very heavy onus on the Government to show that it is necessary in the interests of the country for a change to be made? Does anyone really think that ex officio magistrates in other parts of the country will complain and say, "They have alowed ex officio magistrates in the City of London to remain"? They will not do so because they all acknowledge that the system in the City of London is different and that those who sit on the bench there have had an adequate training and very often deal with cases which, to some extent, are different from cases heard in other parts of the country.
The real test is: does the system work? If it does, why change it at very considerable expense to the Government? Surely vie are sick and tired of the argument that it will not cost very much. The sum total of everything which does not cost very much is very great indeed.
The sole issue throughout the debate, to misquote the words of the Lord Chief Justice, is: have the Government put

forward any justification for the sacrifice of this system on the altar of uniformity? No such justification has been given and the Government at this stage should accept these Amendments.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful for the opportunity at this late stage to be able to speak in support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) and to make this last appeal to the right hon. and learned Attorney General to reconsider the attitude of the Government to this matter. I did not have the advantage of being present on Second Reading, but I would not like this Measure to go through the House without raising my voice against it.
A country must be rich indeed in money and in experienced and devoted judges ready to give their time freely to the service of community that can afford to do away with a system of justice in the centre of its capital city which, as everyone has acknowledged, has served the country well from time immemorial and is shown by all the statistics which have been quoted to be serving the country and the capital well to this very day. I will not go through the numerous statistics which were quoted on Second Reading, but the 1967 figures of over 19,000 cases tried by the justices in the City, with 20 appeals and only six allowed, speak for themselves.
I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), which has been expressed by speaker after speaker, that what we are seeing here—and perhaps I may quote the learned Lord Chief Justice—is the sacrifice of this system, whereby the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City give their services freely, upon the altar of consistency. In an ancient country like ours it is right and proper that we should enjoy the fruits of centuries of experience enshrined in ancient institutions. It is right that we should examine those institutions with the years that pass to see whether they fit the needs of modern times.
The Royal Commission of 1948, the present Lord Chief Justice, his predecessor in office, and everyone who has spoken about the services of the aldermen of the City of London as justices have paid tribute to the fact that this is a


system which works. Why, therefore, is it to be scrapped and thrown overboard and to have put in its place a new and more costly system in which three justices will have to sit where one sits now, where more court room will be needed, and where the authorities responsible will probably have to go outside the City to find the people to sit? I venture to express the view that the logical result will be that we shall see in the City the same system of Metropolitan magistrates which we have in the rest of London. It is a good system, but it will be infinitely more costly than the present service which is given by the City of London by its officers.
I said that a country must be rich indeed that can afford to do this. Can we afford it? We cannot. We are seeking every possible means of reducing expenditure which falls upon the State in the provision of social and judicial services, but we are here throwing overboard a tried system and replacing it by a very much more costly system.

Mr. W.O. J. Robinson: Following the argument about the replacement of the aldermen of the City of London, do I take it, from what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, that the aldermen of the City of London would either be unwilling or unable to serve as justices of the peace by name and not by office?

Mr. Grieve: I am sure that the aldermen will be disposed to give their services as before. But why augment it? Why increase the cost? Why dismantle the whole edifice of justice in the City which has served the country so well?
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) a little while ago denigrated and sought to diminish the number of cases coming before the City justices which were of a peculiar kind; that is to say, financial, commercial cases. Although they may be few in number compared with the large number of driving cases and matters of that kind which come before the justices, nevertheless they are cases of great importance in the commercial and financial life of this country. It would be a great pity if justices experienced in trying that type of case were to be excluded, by a new system, from bring

ing their experience to bear in trying those cases.
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) referred to the fact that some cases had to be dealt with outside the City of London. Is that such a hardship? Are the transport services in the City and County of London to be compared with those, when British Railways have had their way, in the fastnesses of Lincolnshire, the Highlands of Scotland or the centre of Wales? Bow Street Magistrates' Court is within yards of the boundary of the City of London. Is it a hardship for the few people who live in the City—and most of the cases coming before the City justices do not concern those who live there—to have their cases sent to Bow Street or even to juvenile courts a little further west? Arguments of that kind demonstrate the lengths to which those who seek to dismantle this system are forced to go to discharge the heavy burden of showing that this system should be dismantled. I do not think that anyone on this side thinks there is any justification for it.
The hon. Member for Hampstead also said that there was no nexus between being an alderman and being a City magistrate. This is contrary to the facts, because the Court of Aldermen does not elect an alderman unless he has the capacity to serve the City and the country in a judicial capacity. It cannot be sufficiently emphasised that an alderman goes through a period of training. He has to attend court not three, as in the Lord Chancellor's scheme, but six times to see how it works. Having gone through his period of training he then sits consistently for very many years acquiring greater judicial experience, knowledge and expertise than perhaps any other Justice of the Peace in the country.
We cannot afford, anomalous as it may seem to those who would reduce the whole country to a common pattern, to dismantle our ancient institutions. I think it was Burke who said that those who seek to undo that which time has justified should look very hard at what they have in mind to see whether there is any justification for it. I submit there is no justification whatever for this change. Even at this last moment I hope that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will see the force of all that has been said and will accede to these Amendments.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I should like to say a few words about one aspect of the administration of justice to which insufficient attention has been directed, and that is the element of confidence. Speaking as one with some years' experience, I am inclined to think that if anybody were to ask me, "What do you think is the most important thing about a court of justice?" my answer would be that it should enjoy the confidence of the persons over whom it exercises authority, and whom it serves by administering justice.
It is not very important how the confidence is obtained. I think that nobody will ever enjoy confidence without deserving it, because our fellow countrymen tire very astute, and their judgment is good. I do not think that it serves any purpose to ask how we can obtain confidence. Confidence is either reposed in an individual, or a court, or anybody else, or it is not.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) is not here, because he rather put to us who take the view that I am advancing that it is for us to justify what we say. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I think that when people wish to change something which, by common consent, works, the onus is on them. Let me, however, accept the hon. Gentleman's challenge. The justification for leaving these courts alone is that they enjoy the full confidence of the persons to whom they administer justice. There is nothing more that we can demand of a system, or of anybody in the system, there is nothing more that we can hope to receive from anybody who is any part of the system, than that he has the complete confidence of the persons whom he has to try.
I think that it is taking a grave risk in changing the system, when one has that most priceless asset in the administration of justice, without any reason to assume, and certainly no reason in logic to deduce, that the new system will enjoy greater confidence. Unless one can presuppose that, all that one is doing is taking a risk of lessening confidence.
I practised in the magistrates court some years ago, and I have the greatest respect for the vast majority of those who do this voluntary service, but it cannot be denied by anybody who has practised

in these courts that the most distressing feature is that on occasions, probably due to inexperience, possibly due simply to a lack of the necessary capability, that confidence in the court suffers. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W.O. J. Robinson) shakes his head. I do not think that he is entitled to do so. I am not saying that this is common. I am not saying that this is the rule, rather than the exception. I am saying that it is folly to shut one's eyes to the fact that this can, and does, happen, albeit in a small proportion of cases. I do not care how small it is. When it does happen, it is very sad, because the moment people lose confidence in the system for the administration of justice, never mind in how few cases, or in how small a respect, that is a loss to the country.

Mr. W.O. J. Robinson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that that absence of confidence at no time, and in no case, has existed in the City of London courts?

Mr. Percival: Yes. I am speaking from my own experience, and based on what I have heard in this debate. I do not say that there may not have been the odd case which I have not either suffered personally or come across, but I think I am justified in making my point when everyone who has spoken during the debates on the Bill has praised the efficiency of these courts. On all the evidence available, these courts enjoy a high degree of confidence. This is a priceless asset in the administration of justice, and we should not risk tampering with it unless we have some good reason for supposing that what we are going to do will be an improvement.
I end by echoing something which has been said by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it is so important that it bears saying again. I think that many of us are in danger of equating change and reform. To me, reform means improvement. There is a grave risk in saying that we must bring about the maximum number of reforms that we can, that we must chalk up a great list of them, and assuming that every time we change something that is reform.
I echo the warning which has been sounded throughout this debate by so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.


Let us not fall into the error of equating change with reform. Before we change anything, let us make certain that what we are putting in its place is an improvement. It is because, without any spirit of rancour, and without any party political spirit, that I remain unconvinced, having studied almost everything that has been said during the passage of the Bill, that the change proposed is an improvement, that I shall take the opportunity to vote in support of the Amendment, unless, even at this late hour, the Attorney-General is persuaded by what has been said from this side of the House.

Mr. W.O. J. Robinson: I intervene only briefly to explain and extend my intervention on the question of confidence. I have no experience of the City of London Bench, and I would not hesitate to accept that it has the respect of the people, but I think that when the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) was talking about confidence in the court he was judging and examining it from the point of view of the confidence shown by members of the legal profession.
I have regard to the confidence which a litigant, or an ordinary applicant, or a poor defendant, has in the court, and it is because of this question of confidence that the proposed change commends itself to me. One essential ingredient in the confidence of members coming to the court is that they should believe that the justices on the bench will, by experience, training, and perhaps social status, be capable of understanding the difficulties in which they, as litigants, are placed.

Mr. Percival: I welcome the opportunity of making it clear that when I am talking about confidence in the court, I am talking about the confidence of a lay client, not of the profession. This is what matters. These are the people who are at the receiving end of what is administered, and it is vital that the court should enjoy their confidence.

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because that intervention strengthens my approach to the problem. I believe that it is imperative that the lay client should have confidence not only in the manner in which justice is administered—and one often has people who are discontented—but that

the people on the bench understand his situation. I have sat as a magistrate on a number of occasions, and I have often felt that there was resentment by the person appearing in the court that his situation was not fully understood.
With respect to the aldermen of the City of London, I think that people who appear before them, knowing them to be aldermen, knowing their status, may feel—perhaps wrongly—that the learned gentlemen on the Bench do not understand their problems and the reason why they committed acts which are perhaps inexplicable to the Bench. The argument which fortifies the Government's proposal more than anything else is that by enabling a bench to be composed of men and women from all strata of society the court would inspire much more of the confidence which the hon. and learned Member for Southport regarded as essential. He could hardly have posed a more effective reason for passing the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: No one can say that the lawyers have not done a very heavy stint in the House this week. They have probably worked harder than any other section in advance of the Recess and I thought it desirable that a layman on this side should also speak. Also, the City of London, which is a very tiny city, needs some support from the representative of the smallest county. I had a battle in this House on behalf of the traditions of my county, and I am glad that it was against the previous Government, since, despite the right hon. and learned Gentleman's benign smile, if it had been against this Government, I should have been unlikely to win it.
At least, when we were in Government, we recognised that something which was anomalous and difficult could nevertheless be retained, almost because it was anomalous and difficult. A case could be made for changing something to make it conform, but the country now wants more of the non-conformist attitude. If the Attorney-General recognised that mood, he would accept the case of the City that its aldermen should remain justices, purely on the basis of tradition, of something which has gone on for many years. It just happens to work.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W.O. J. Robinson) said that justice needed to be seen to be done through the people on the bench being representative of those who appeared before them. I am not a justice, but I understand that they come to know peoples' problems by dealing with them over many years. They know from experience what people have to contend with and what makes them commit offences and they get a sympathyétique. I am sure that this must be so for the justices of the City.
Many of these men could not serve as justices in their places of residence because they could not attend in the morning. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) said that there should be others sitting alongside the aldermen, but those who work in the City, 98 per cent. of them at least, live outside. They can serve as justices in Tower Hamlets or any other London borough in which they live, and no doubt many do.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned t he difficulties of the juvenile court. I was not on the Committee, so I apologise if I speak without knowledge, but it seems reasonable to have a juvenile court in the City of London. If so, would it not be possible to have additional magistrates to serve on it? This would enable women to serve.
There are three factors which should be telling reasons for the Attorney-General to give final consideration to this matter. The first is tradition, which should not be discounted, The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not assume that workmen in Lincolnshire, Lancashire or Tower Hamlets are concerned about a selection of wage and salary earners among the aldermen. This is a mistake which has recently been blown sky-high politically and is therefore even more unlikely to be true of justice.
5.45 p.m.
The other two reasons should appeal to the Attorney-General because of the Government's present situation. First, the present system will undoubtedly keep down costs. Changing to a system which means building new courts and appointing new magistrates would raise the cost. On a Bill to make a modest increase in cost of £3 million, a Minister said that

that was a paltry sum, to which I replied that it was the addition of so many so-called modest sums which led to great increases in expenditure and thus in taxation.
The third reason is that the Government believe in productivity in every aspect of our national life and I understand from this debate that the City magistrates provide both quality and productivity in the performance of their duties—so why change the system? If the present system serves, preserves tradition and is less costly, the best thing which the Government can do is to retain it.

Sir John Foster: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) said that the aldermen were chosen on the basis of politics. That is entirely wrong: politics do not come into it.
The argument that the accused must feel that there is a wage earner among the justices is an argument against any stipendiaries or independent High Court judges. We know that there are strong arguments for stipendiaries and it has not been objected to them that they are not wage earners and have not been dockers, so there is a fallacy in this argument. If a court is to be efficient and to inspire confidence, that is all the more justification for the aldermen of the City, with their training and experience.
They are halfway between lay justices and stipendiaries. A stipendiary is more efficient and a better tribunal to deal with a great press of cases, and lay justices are better suited to sparse populations. Because of the peculiar conditions in the City, its system is the best suited to the district.

The Attorney-General: This is the third time that the arguments on both sides of the issues arising from these Amendments have been deployed with skill, persuasiveness and moderation. Today, there has been re-emphasis rather than novelty in the argument. I make no complaint about that: on the contrary, I would repeat what I said in Committee, that the Government's proposals are, of course, in no way inspired by any hostility to the City and even less by any prejudice, political or social.
It is unthinkable, indeed incredible, that the status and reputation of the City, its Lord Mayor and aldermen will be


whittled down one iota if they are deprived of the inherent and automatic right to be made justices of the peace when they are made aldermen. In practice, the aldermen will probably be made J.P.s under the new arrangements, and the proposals that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has made as to the manning of the advisory committee, which will be set up if Parliament approves these proposals, will ensure the close connection and community between the aldermen and the Bench of the City of London.
I am prompted by the attractive speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) to mention that this is not the first Administration who have sought to alter ancient practices and institutions. I recollect that during the time of the previous Conservative Administration I was briefed by the Home Office to move for the abolition of the independent police force of the County of Rutland, an occasion I shall never forget. The town crier and the local population were crying out for the populace to muster to defend the quality and independence of their own police force. When I deployed the argument of the Home Office that larger police forces were necessary to meet the grave challenge of contemporary crime, counsel for Rutland pointed out that the only murder committed in the county occurred in 1789, which he describes as "a very turbulent year." I must not be prompted to reminisce, but the end of the story was that the police force of Rutland was amalgamated with that of the County of Leicester, and, as far as I know, the police there have lived happily ever after.

Sir D. Renton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that that was done by "the" previous Administration. In fact, it was done by "a" previous Administration—and it was a Socialist one.

The Attorney-General: I do not think so. I recollect—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue that matter now. We are dealing with the City of London.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that we were dealing with the City of

London. Hon. Members cannot, on this Amendment, pursue reminiscences about the County of Rutland.

Mr. Lewis: I was not in the House on that occasion.

The Attorney-General: I accept your reproach, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it may be that I should accept the correction of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) as well.
While I know how strongly the City feels about losing the special arrangements for its Bench, those arrangements should, in my submission, be changed. The principal object of this part of the Bill is to improve the system by which persons become J.P.s in England and Wales. Most of the Bill's provisions are based on the principle that magistrates' courts should generally be composed of lay J.P.s who are men and women of integrity and intelligence, drawn, so far as is practicable, from all sections of the community and who have been specially selected to be J.P.s.
I have emphasised that they are men and women because the House may be interested to know that there are now about 5,200 women out of the total of about 16,300 justices on the active list in England and Wales. It is now generally accepted that women magistrates play a valuable part in the administration of justice.
Another principle which underlies the Bill is that a case coming before lay justices should not be tried by a justice, however experienced, sitting alone. It is because the arrangements in the City of London conflict with these principles, which are basic to the administration of justice in magisterial courts, that the Government have thought it right to apply the decision to abolish ex officio justices not only to the chairmen of local authorities throughout the country but also to the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London.
The House has generally accepted that the fact that a man is appointed mayor should not be a ground for entitling him to administer justice in the magistrates' court. The principle which underlies that argument applies with a good deal of force to the arrangements for the City of London—although not, of course, with


the same force because of special factors, to which I shall come.
The aldermanic courts of the City of London are quite unique in that not only are the justices who man them sitting by virtue of their election to high civic office, but because they sit alone, whereas current opinion I think favours magisterial benches of three lay magistrates as the best type of lay bench. The City benches are also unique because there is not a woman among them. Nor is there any reasonable prospect that there will be a woman among them in the near future.
We had occasion in Committee to refer to the charming lady, the "rare bird", who is the only woman Common Councillor, and it may be that she will fly to the aldermanic bench in due course. It has not happened yet and there has never been a woman alderman in the City of London. For that reason women who appear before that court are not likely to have the confidence of the presence of a woman on the bench, and the bench is deprived of the contribution that women can make in that capacity.
The argument has ranged on both sides of the House about whether the alder-manic bench meets the requirement of representing different sections of the local population of the City of London. I submit that it does not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) referred to what I think has been the aim of successive Lord Chancellors; to try to bring about, in the manning of magisterial benches, representation on them of all manners, sorts and conditions of people. This has not happened in respect of the City Bench and it cannot happen by virtue of the fact that it is manned exclusively by those who are elected and selected as aldermen. The arrangements for the City of London therefore conflict fundamentally with principles which, I submit, are the proper principles to apply in the manning of magisterial benches.
I have conceded—I do so completely—that the quality of the work of the City justices has been high. I readily acknowledge the value of the services that they have rendered. However, I repeat the view expressed by the Lord Chancellor; that there is nothing inherent in the present system in the City which makes it better than that operating in the rest of the country, particularly since the general require-

ment now exists that a new magistrate must undergo a term of training before he or she undertakes magisterial duties. There are no real grounds for thinking that the quality of City justice will deteriorate if the existing City system is replaced by one similar to that followed everywhere else in England and Wales.
6.0 p.m.
It has been suggested in the debate that there is something peculiar, something special, about the character of crime in the City of London which calls for an exceptional kind of lay bench. I do not accept that and I do not think the facts support that contention. The pattern of crime in the City does not differ substantially from that in other urban areas. There are fewer burglaries, there are fewer housebreakers, but there are still a very large number of ordinary criminal offences ranging—surprisingly enough—from rape, no doubt a product of nocturnal habits which one hon. Member mentioned, all the way down to a mass of motoring and parking offences.
I am particularly happy to see that crime in the City does not reflect a specially disproportionate volume of fraud cases. If it did, it may well be that the reputation of the City in financial matters would indeed suffer. I read with interest and care a pamphlet which the City authorities put out on this Bill, which deals with the point I am now considering. It says:
while much of the daily business of the courts"—
of the City—
resembles that of other courts of justices of the peace, some cases are of considerable magnitude and complexity. Many cases arise directly from business of the City as the centre of the nation's financial life".
It says that in these circumstances the training and experience of the City aldermen show to particular advantage. Four illustrations are given. R. v. Grunwald and others in 1960, which related to a building society conspiracy involving £3,500,000, which lasted for 14 days; R. v. Moyland and Others, 26 days; R. v. Pim, Scarsfield and York, which lasted for 13 days in 1965; and a Purchase Tax case which took 12 days. All four were all committal proceedings. The time that was taken upon them was in relation to committal proceedings. Since the recent changes we have made in the


Criminal Justice Act in committal proceedings in regard to the use of written statements and other time-saving methods, committal proceedings should certainly be far shorter hereafter than they were during the hearing of those cases.
It would still be open, if this Bill becomes law, for a single justice in the City to continue to sit alone to deal with committal proceedings. I devoutly hope that aldermen will still be sitting on the aldermanic bench and the aldermen with particular skill in the field of accounts will obviously be invited—and I hope will accept the invitation—to deal with committal proceedings in that sort of case when the new arrangements come into force.
What I find very doubtful is whether fraud cases of length and great complexity will be tried in the City by single justices. Under Section 19 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, justices are enabled to try certain indictable offences summarily, but, before they do so, under Section 19(2) they must satisfy themselves not only that the punishment which they have power to inflict will be adequate—and they are limited to six months—but also
that the circumstances do not make the offence one of serious character and do not for other reasons require trial on indictment.
I should have thought that that would prevent justices in the City trying cases lasting for two or three weeks, as distinct from dealing with committal proceedings.
I readily appreciate that there will be a benefit to have in the courts of the City the expertise of aldermen who are versed in business matters and can follow complex accounts in committal proceedings, but the particular and very special

arrangements which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has proposed for the manning of the Advisory Committee which will nominate the future justices of the peace for the City, will maintain the links between appointment as an alderman and the holding of office as a magistrate. Accordingly, the new arrangements will ensure the continuance of the services and skills of aldermen, while giving to the City of London courts the application of principles which are appropriate for this part of this century and which fall into line with the principles which are applied to magisterial courts elsewhere in England and Wales.

Accordingly, I must advise the House to reject these Amendments.

Sir P. Rawlinson: For the second time within 48 hours, having listened to the Attorney-General, I am not surprised to hear what he said, however much I deeply regret it. Once again we have not heard any reason why on the merits this change should be made. Instead, at increased cost we are to have an increased number of people doing a job, and not doing the job so well. At a time when we should be doing everything possible to rationalise and make sensible all our efforts in the country, the stubbornness of the Government will be noted and not forgotten. They will have done a disservice to themselves by adopting their attitude, a disservice I do not care much about, but they will also be doing a disservice to the pursuing of criminal justice, which I do care about. For these reasons I invite my hon. and right hon. Friends to press the Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 163.

Division No. 119.]
AYES
[6.8 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boardman, Tom
Cary, Sir Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Body, Richard
Clegg, Walter


Astor, John
Bossom, Sir Clive
Cooke, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Braine, Bernard
Corfield, F. V.


Batsford, Brian
Brewis, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver


Bell, Ronald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crouch, David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Bessell, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biffen, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Campbell, Gordon
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas




Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Anthony


Elliot, Cant. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Lubbock, Eric
Sharples, Richard


Errington, Sir Eric
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Silvester, Frederick


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fortescue, Tim
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Foster, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Speed, Keith


Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley
Stainton, Keith


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maddan, Martin
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Goodhew, Victor
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Edward M. (C'gow, Cathcart)


Cower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Grant, Anthony
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grant-Ferris, R.
Miscampbell, Norman
Thorpe, Rt. Hn, Jeremy


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tilney, John


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Walters, Dennis


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ward, Dame Irene


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hill, J. E, B.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hooson, Emlyn
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hordern, Peter
Pardoe, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Worsley, Marcus


Hunt, John
Peel, John
Wright, Esmond


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian
Wylie, N. R.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pounder, Rafton
Younger, Hn. George


Jopling, Michael
Pym, Francis



Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Mr. Jasper More and


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas





NOES


Archer, Peter
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, John (Reading)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ford, Ben
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Forrester, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fowler, Gerry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Garrett, W. E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McBride, Neil


Bradley, Tom
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Maccoll, James


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gregory, Arnold
MacDermot, Niall,


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Macdonald, A. H,


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamling, William
Madennan, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Carmichael, Neil
Haseldine, Norman
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Coe, Denis
Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Concannon, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.
Manuel, Archie


Crawshaw, Richard
Henig, Stanley
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, J, J,


Dalyell, Tam
Horner, John
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Bryth)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howie, W.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn, Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Rt. Hn. cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Newens, Stan


Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Dewar, Donald
Hynd, John
O'Malley, Brian


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orbach, Maurice


Dickens, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Orme, Stanley


Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Park, Trevor


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Eadie, Alex
Kelley, Richard
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Ellis, John
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


English, Michael
Lawson, George
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Ennals, David
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Faulds, Andrew
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rees, Merlyn




Reynolds, G. W.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitaker, Ben


Richard, Ivor
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P 'c' as)
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Small, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Snow, Julian
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Swingler, Stephen
Woof, Robert


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Thornton, Ernest



Ryan, John
Varley, Eric C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Clause 5.

JUSTICES' CLERKS.

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 6, line 14, at end insert:
'and that the clerk may, at any time when he thinks he should do so, bring any such question to the attention of the justices or justice'.
I shall be exceedingly brief in moving the Amendment in the hope that, on the one hand, I shall earn the gratitude of my Scottish colleagues and, on the other hand, that it may be favourably received by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Clause 5(3) is a declaratory Clause. It does not change the law in any way, but the Justices' Clerks' Society and the Magistrates' Association felt that there should be some statutory definition of the rôle in the court of the justices' clerk. I was fortunate enough upstairs, when the Bill was considered in Committee, to have subsection (3) added to the Bill for this purpose. There was some doubt in my mind, which I expressed in the Committee upstairs, whether my own subsection went far enough to cover a clerk giving advice to his justices at any time, and not merely at their request, as the words say.
The Amendment clarifies beyond any doubt that it is the duty, the responsibility and the right of a justices' clerk to advise his justices on a point of law at any time he thinks he should do so and he can bring it to their attention.

The Attorney-General: I am happy to advise the House to accept the Amendment. It does no more than restate what is in a Practice Direction which was given by Lord Goddard when he was Lord Chief Justice in 1953. On that occasion, he said:
It would be proper for the clerk himself to call the Justices' attention to the fact that a question of law does or may arise if they do not appear to be already aware of it. It would then be for them to consider whether they wanted his further advice on that question.

The Amendment establishes that proposition beyond a peradventure, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving it.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2.

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CITY OF LONDON AND LOCAL ACT STIPENDIARIES.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 13, line 22, leave out from 'shall' to 'be' in line 23.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 9.

The Attorney-General: The purpose of these two Amendments is to simplify and clarify the provisions relating to the superannuation arrangements for the staff of the Local Act Stipendiary Magistrates in South Staffordshire and the Staffordshire Potteries. They deal with somewhat complex legal matters. Unless the House desires me particularly to explain them, I do not think that it is necessary. Their purpose is clear and desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 9, in page 13, line 24, leave out from ' committee ' to end of line 26 and insert:
'but this shall not affect the operation of section 29 of that Act (payment of transfer values) '.—[Mr. Attorney-General.]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time. [Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Sir Barnett Janner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This Motion is not debatable.

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SEWERAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

6.24 p m.

Mr. Speaker: As usual, I have posted my selection of Amendments. We come first to Amendment No. 1.

Clause 1.

DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FOR SEWERAGE OF THEIR AREA.

Mr. George Willis: 1 beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 17, after ' points ', insert ' in relation to the curtilage'.
We had a long debate in Committee on the very sweeping character of the powers contained in Clause 1. In particular, a point was raised about the lack of definition and the consequent doubts as to the great expenditures which might be placed upon local authorities. We cannot cover all that again but, since then, I have received further representations on the Clause relating to the lack of definition in subsection (2). Perhaps I might read an extract from them:
Clause 1 (2) requires local authorities to tike sewers to points where owners of premises can connect their drains to them at reasonable cost to themselves. This replaces the former requirement (Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, Section 120) for owners to connect to sewers where these were within 100 yards of the premises. This is undoubtedly an improvement but I feel suffers from lack of definition and it would be better to specify a distance to the curtilage of a building. I suggest specifying the distance to the curtilage rather than to the building itself (as in the Public Health Act, 1936, Section 37, applicable to England and Wales) since the siting of a binding within a feu is a matter often determined by the building owner without reference to the local authority.
The representations go on to suggest that, if it was to the curtilage, the distance could be reduced from the figure o' 100 feet referred to in the English Act to 50 feet.
I do not want to argue about what the distance should be. All that I suggest is that, if local authorities took their public sewers to such point or points in relation to the curtilage of the building, it would be preferable to the way in which the subsection is worded at

present. It would be more specific, especially as the representations point out that since the siting of a building within a feu is a matter often determined by the building owner without reference to the local authority, the distance could be quite considerable and a local authority could be called upon to incur considerable expenditure in bringing a sewer within a reasonable distance, whatever "reasonable" might mean, of the building rather than to the curtilage of the building. In this way, a local authority would have a much clearer idea of what the Government envisage in the Clause. At the same time, local authorities would be safeguarded against excessive expenditures.
I do not wish to carry on the debate unduly, but when my hon. Friend comes to reply, I think that he ought to give us an indication of whether the subsection means that public sewers shall be taken to such point or points in relation to the building itself so as to enable the owners of premises to be served to connect their drains or private sewers at reasonable cost, or whether the Government have in mind that public sewers should be taken to a point at a reasonable distance from the curtilage.
There is a big distinction here, and it is one which might involve local authorities in a fair amount of expenditure. It would be an improvement if something could be put into the subsection along the lines of the Amendment to make the point clear when the Bill goes to another place.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): In the first place, I am not altogether clear that the words suggested by my right hon. Friend will of themselves bring about the point that he wants to make clear.
Local authorities are already required to take public sewers to a point or points at which the owner of premises will be able to connect his drain at reasonable cost to himself. The test of reciprocal reasonable cost, embodied in subsections (2) and (3), will determine the point to which the sewer must be taken. It might be the boundary of the curtilage of the premises. It might be some distance outside the boundary. In exceptional circumstances, it might even be inside the boundary of the curtilage.
I am not sure that the words chosen, "in relation to the curtilage" achieve the


desired effect. Even if they do, I am not sure that I can accept the intention of the Amendment. In Committee, we discussed the reasons for drafting the Clause as we have and we rejected attempts to limit or define more closely the duty of local authorities under the Clause. The test of practicability at reasonable cost is the only one which fits the great variety of circumstances likely to be encountered by local authorities. In this respect it does not seem to me that it is an entirely feasible alternative and, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: While I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument on "reasonable costs" I have yet to find, by and large, anybody willing to define what the word "reasonable" means in the sense of costs. The difficulty of interpretation has caused considerable difficulties to local authorities and increased rate burdens from time to time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is perfectly practical and sound in his attitude in feeling that there should be some reference to the curtilage of the feu. It is all very well to say that the sewer shall be taken to a point which may be suitable for a private owner to connect, but in view of the speculative building that is taking place in some parts of the country, where a local authority is to be called on to take the sewer within reasonable proximity to a building, that could easily mean crossing a great distance over a feu. In fact, that is what is happening at the present time.
In the case of the house of an agricultural worker the curtilage of the feu can be 100 yards away from the building, and simply because his building is situated in a very large tract of land this provision in this Clause could mean that in circumstances similar to those to which I have referred, a local authority could be compelled to carry public services such as sewers over long distances to bring them within close proximity to a building, with the consequence that a large amount of piping would have to be provided, installed and maintained at the expense of the ratepayers, for the benefit of people who may be well able to meet the cost themselves.
I myself served for some years on the drainage committee of one of the largest

counties in Scotland and I know what can be involved unless there is a clear declaration of intent that the services should be taken to within the curtilage of a particular area as compared with the factor of reasonable cost. I recognise the difficulty of my hon. Friend. No doubt, he has a brief which he has studied and he is convinced that this is a sensible attitude to adopt. But it is not as simple or as easy as that. It would be much better to define the situation in the words of the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East. In moving this Amendment he seeks to be precise. That is what is wrong with this Bill. There is not sufficient precision in order to protect local authorities and ratepayers, for "reasonable cost" is a very unwieldy term and one could drive a cart and horse through any interpretation of it. My hon. Friend should study some of the cases which have appeared in Scottish courts from time to time, when he would be shocked at our judges' decisions on interpretations of the word "reasonable".
I take the view, therefore, that this would have been a much better Bill, and a sounder one from the point of view of reasoning, had my hon. Friend been able to incorporate in it the wording of my hon. Friend's Amendment which is more precise and which I believe, from my own experience, would assist in protecting local authorities against any inordinate requirement to provide services as a result of the present wording of the Bill.

Mr. Willis: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has not been willing to look at this Amendment rather more favourably. I would ask him whether he would not give this a little more thought before it goes to another place; because, as I understand it, this is the first time in which a reference to distance has not been included—either a distance from a building or from a curtilage—and I had hoped that my hon. Friend would have been able to look at this again or have been willing to do so before it went to another place.

Mr. Buchan: I understand the arguments that have been advanced and the reasons for them. The difficulty is that we are asked to provide precision. The trouble is that so many varying circumstances can exist that precision is not


necessarily the quality we need here. We want the kind of situation in which varying circumstances can be dealt with in various ways and we believe that this is the best way of doing that, in association with the need to look at reasonable cost. This will not be laying upon local authorities a kind of emphasis out-with what is reasonable, because there is provision under subsection (4) for the Secretary of State, after consultation, with an aggrieved person and the local authority, to determine the question, and for the local authority to give effect to his determination.

Mr. Willis: They vary as much as the curtilages.

Mr. Buchan: But the variations of a Secretary of State will tend over a period of time to become more uniform, and his kind of decision will create uniformity, and, in the event, the kind of precision that hon. Members want.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3.

CONSTRUCTION ETC. OF PUBLIC SEWERS AND PUBLIC SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 31, after 'works', insert:
'and of the right to object thereto'.

Mr. Speaker: I propose that with Amendment No. 2 we take Amendments No. 3, No. 4, in page 2, line 32, leave out from 'owner' to 'may' in line 34 and insert:
'or occupier objects thereto, or attaches to their consent any terms or conditions to which the local authority object, and such objections or terms or conditions are not withdrawn, the local authority';

No. 8, and No. 9, in page 3, line 2, leave out from beginning to ' may ' in line 10 and insert:
'if within two months after the service of the notice the local authority on whom it was served object thereto, or attach thereto terms or conditions to which the first mentioned local authority object, and such objecttion or terms or conditions are not withdrawn, the first mentioned local authority'.

Mr. Ross: These Amendments are to give effect to undertakings which we gave during the Committee stage to reconsider

the procedure for giving notice and for objections where a local authority proposes to construct works which will form part of its sewerage system. This Amendment gives effect to a suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) during the Committee proceedings to provide that in giving notice to an owner or occupier of intending works, whether inside or outside their area, the local authority must draw attention to the right to object.
The main Government Amendment is Amendment No. 3, at page 2, line 32. The effect is that where a local authority proposes to construct a sewer in or over any land—other than in a street, either inside or outside its area, the owner or occupier of the land will have an opportunity to object within two months, in which case the sheriff must decide whether or not the works are to proceed. If no objection is lodged, the local authority can start work at the end of the two months.
This replaces the existing provisions of subsection (2) whereby the owner and occupier must each give a positive consent, without which the local authority cannot proceed except by order of the sheriff. The Amendment reduces the risk of undue delay without depriving the owner or occupier of his right of objection. This point was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) but it was supported from both sides of the Committee and has the support of the County Councils' Association.
Amendment No. 8, at page 3, line 2, makes a corresponding alteration to the procedure in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 3, where the local authority proposes to execute works of sewerage outside its area and a neighbouring local authority has a right to object.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: We are obliged to the Minister for promoting these Amendments which as he said, follow undertakings given in Committee. There is only one difference between our Amendments and the Minister's, and that is that the Minister's does not appear to take account of the possibility that, while an owner may not object to the proposal, he may annexe conditions to the consent to which the


local authority may take an exception. This possibility is envisaged in subsection (2) where it is provided:
…and the occupier fail to give their consent, or attach to their consent any terms or conditions to which the local authority objects, the local authority may refer the matter …
This is not a matter which ought to take up a great deal of time, but, since the Minister is departing from those words and leaving aside the possibility of a conditional acceptance not acceptable to the local authority, we ought to have an explanation before we let the Government's Amendment through.

Mr. Buchan: By leave of the House. This is the basic distinction between these two sets of Amendments. It seems unnecessary to include the requirement that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned. As we propose to alter the Clause, it will provide adequate protection for the person or the local authority willing to consent on conditions which the first local authority finds unacceptable. It will be able to object. I have looked at this point, and it seems to be completely covered.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member does not need the leave of the House to speak again.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, line 32, leave out from 'owner' to 'may' in line 34 and insert:
'or the occupier objects to the proposed works, and that objection is not withdrawn, the local authority shall not proceed to execute the works without consent aftermentioned but'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 39, at end insert:
(3) Section 349 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 (service of notices) shall apply to notices under subsection (2) above relating to land as it applies to notices relating to premises.
When the Bill was in Committee the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) suggested that subsection (2) of Clause 3 should empower the local authority, where the owner is unknown or cannot be found, after reasonable inquiry, to post notice of proposed works prominently on the land. We felt that to some extent this was already covered,

but there is some doubt about the extent to which it might apply to land. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that in the context of Clause 3 the power extends to both land and premises.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 43, after shall ', insert:
'in addition to any notice served under subsection (2) above'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we will also discuss Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 43, after 'serve', insert 'a further'.

Mr. Buchan: Again, the Government Amendment deals with a point raised in Committee. When a local authority proposes to undertake to construct a sewer, whether inside or outside its area, it must serve notice under Clause 3(2), on the owner and occupier of any affected premises. Under subsection (4) it must serve notice on the local authority for the area adjoining that upon which the works are to be executed. The Amendment makes it clear that this notice is additional to any notice served on owners and occupiers, and is not in substitution for such notice. This is already implicit in Clause 3, but it is as well to put the matter beyond doubt.

Mr. Wylie: This is a very small matter, but I would have thought that as a matter of drafting Amendment 7 was preferable, if only because it cut down the number of words. The Government Amendment undoubtedly seeks to make clear that this is a notice additional to the one referred to earlier. It says:
… in addition to any notice served under subsection (2) above …
The same result can be obtained by simply inserting the two words "a further". For economy of wording and simplicity of expression our Amendment seems preferable. We are not disposed to oppose the Government Amendment if the view of the Minister is that it is essential.

Mr. Buchan: It is essential. The difficulty is that the Opposition Amendment would not cover a situation where the works are to be undertaken in a street, while our Amendment does.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 3, line 2, leave out from beginning to ' may' in line 10 and insert:
'if within two months after the service of the notice the local authority on whom it was served object to the proposed works, and that objection is not withdrawn, the first-mentioned authority shall not proceed to execute the works without consent aftermentioned but'.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 32 after 'into', insert 'any of'.
This is a small drafting Amendment. I hope that it commends itself to the Minister, but it is not one to which we attach any great significance.

Mr. Buchan: I hope that the Opposition will withdraw this Amendment. I think it is unnecessary, although I see the paint about the fear that the Clause as drafted would require that all the sewers O' the first authority would have to be connected with all the sewers and works or the second authority. This is not so. It is quite clear as it stands. If this were to be accepted, we would have to change other things which would add further wards, and I know that the hon. and learned Member dislikes that.

Mr. Wylie: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5.

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 37, leave out 'either authority' and insert 'those authorities'.

Mr. Speaker: We can also take with this Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 36, after second 'the', insert 'joint'.

Mr. Buchan: In Committee we undertook to consider the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and also by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). They both suggested that under Clause 5(2) the

Secretary of State could force a local authority into an agreement with another against its will. The intention as we explained at the time, is that the Secretary of State should arbitrate only on the conditions of an agreement, where the local authorities agree in principle that they wish to enter into one, but cannot agree on the actual conditions.
We have examined this again in the light of the debate in Committee, and to make sure that there is no possibility of doubt, this Amendment would have the effect that the Secretary of State will arbitrate only on the application of both of the local authorities concerned, or all of them if there are more than two. This will ensure that the necessary measure of agreement must exist before he is asked to intervene and that one local authority cannot force another into an agreement.

Mr. Wylie: This Amendment radically changes the whole provisions of subsection (2), and meets the criticisms made of it. As it stood, either authority could apply to the Secretary of State and the other authority was bound by that application, which seemed contrary to the whole spirit of the Clause. These words undoubtedly rectify that defect. The purpose of inserting the word "joint" before "application" is to make it perfectly clear—I will accept it is not strictly necessary as a matter of interpretation—that it is a joint application of two or more authorities where two or more authorities are involved. I would like to think that the Minister would be willing to accept this short addition to the Amendment.

Mr. Buchan: The Amendment as we have it covers the point. The difficulty about providing for a joint application is that it would suggest that both authorities should sign the same piece of paper, and would thus be unduly restrictive.
In any case, the Amendment is defective in that it would insert a reference to the "joint application of either authority" which, by its nature, is absurd. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment in favour of ours.

Mr. Wylie: I am assuming that the Government Amendment would be in as well as ours, so that the wording would


be "joint application of those authorities", not "of either authority".

Mr. Buchan: It seems to me that the Government Amendment is correct and Amendment 11 brings in a restrictive aspect. My comment at the end was to explain why we could not substitute the Opposition's Amendment for the Government Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN HIGHWAY AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment 13, with which I suggest that we take Amendments 14, 15 and 16.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 4, line 21, leave out 'question' and insert 'dispute '.
It was argued in Committee that the Secretary of State, in deciding questions under subsection (3), should not be the judge in a dispute to which he is a party. It is not the intention that he should be able to settle such a dispute, and since the Committee stage we have again examined the drafting to ensure that this intention is given effect. I asserted most strongly that he would not be a party to any dispute in which he was involved. However, when we looked at the present wording it seemed possible that the Clause could have been read as empowering the Secretary of State in certain circumstances to rule upon a question where he is involved, for example, as the highway authority for trunk roads. In other words, he could consider that the other authority was acting unreasonably and that he was not. That was not our intention, and the Amendments put it beyond doubt that his powers of arbitration are restricted to disputes where he is not a party.
Amendment 16 implements an undertaking given in Committee. Its effect is to require the Secretary of State, before deciding whether a local highway authority or a local authority is behaving unreasonably, to consult with the authorities concerned. This is in line with other provisions of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 14, in page 4, line 21, after ' section ', insert:
'to which the Secretary of State is not a party'.

No. 15, in page 4, line 22, leave out from ' authority ' to 'are'.

No. 16, in page 4, line 23, leave out ' whose ' and insert:
'who, after consultation with the authorities concerned, shall determine the dispute, and his '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Clause 8.

AGREEMENTS AS TO PROVISION OF SEWERS ETC. FOR NEW PREMISES.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 31 leave out 'him or' and insert 'that person or by'.
This is a purely drafting Amendment which does not alter the meaning of the Clause but has the effect of putting in a phrase, "by that person or by them", which fits in much better with the surrounding context. As hon. Members were quick to point out, the word "him" might be over-restrictive, since "person", to which it refers back, could mean a corporate body.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.

EMPTYING OF SEPTIC TANKS.

Mr. Speaker: We come to Amendment No. 18, with which we shall consider the Government Amendment No. 21 and the following Opposition Amendments: Amendment 19, in page 5, line 10 leave out from 'may' to 'elect' in line 11.
Amendment No. 20, in page 5, line 13, leave out from thereof ' to it ' in line 14 and insert
'and when they so elect, and the Secretary of State approves'.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 10, leave out from 'may' to 'pass' in line 11.
The Government Amendments are drafting Amendments which give effect to a Government undertaking in Committee. As the Clause is drafted, it gives the impression that local authorities cannot pass a resolution by which they elect to empty septic tanks without first obtaining the consent of the Secretary of State. The


intention is, of course, that such a resolution, once passed, should be subject to the Secretary of State's approval, and I hope that the Amendments make this perfectly clear.

Mr. Wylie: Our only criticism of the Amendment is that it does not go far enough. It is acceptable to us with that qualification. Amendment 19 and the consequential Amendment 20 seek to take out of the Clause a further provision telling a local authority what procedure to adopt. The Clause at present states:
A local authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, pass a resolution whereby they elect to empty all septic tanks serving premises …
The matter was raised in Committee. The Government have accepted the first criticism concerning the need to take out the Secretary of State, but they seem reluctant to take out the provision about passing a resolution. It is not for Parliament to tell local authorities what procedure to adopt when making a decision on this or any other matters. The words "pass a resolution" are quite unnecessary to the Clause. If our Amendment were made, the Clause would read:
A local authority may elect to empty all septic tanks …
That seems eminently sensible and the kind of thing the public would readily understand.

Mr. Willis: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) should say that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did not go as far as he would wish. It seems to me that the Government Amendments go further than the hon. and learned Gentleman's, because they remove all reference to the Secretary of State, whereas the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments would keep him in.

Mr. Wylie: Surely the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that when we are accepting one Government Amendment and adding to it it is unnecessary to rewrite the whole thing in a separate Amendment?

Mr. Willis: I thought that this was some rather carping criticism by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am surprised at him, because he is usually much more magnanimous. Just because he has a majority of 64 he should not make

these carping political criticisms. He is not proving worthy of himself this evening. He should say to my hon. Friend, "Thank you very much. We are most grateful for the changes and we welcome them."

Mr. Buchan: I must say why we cannot accept the point of view put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, though I hate to become involved in an inter-Edinburgh argument between my right hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman. I thought that in Committee the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted that there was merit in having a specific reference to a resolution. That is the point of substance between us. It is true that the decision to empty septic tanks as a duty might extend to a fairly small area, but it could be a substantial departure in policy. I do not think that the procedure will be cumbersome. It is desirable that in taking a fairly important policy decision the local authority should be guided towards importing this degree of precision into its proceedings, particularly as it might be necessary to define the boundaries of the areas within which the service is to be provided. Therefore, we believe that "resolution" should remain in.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 21, in page 5, line 14, leave out' with consent as aforesaid ' and insert:
'and approved by the Secretary of State '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Clause 12.

RIGHTS OF OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS TO CONNECT WITH AND DRAIN INTO PUBLIC SEWERS ETC.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 7, line 2, to leave out 'shall' and to insert 'may'.
7.0 p.m.
This Amendment deals with a point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) which we undertook to consider. Under Clause 12(7) as drafted, a local authority would be obliged to undertake any work in a street which was necessary to enable a private sewer or


drain to be connected to a public sewer or sewage treatment works. On consideration, it seems to us that there might be cases, for instance in private streets or lanes, where the local authority should not be obliged to undertake the work, and the Amendment therefore converts the obligation into a discretion. It would still seem inappropriate that the local authorities should allow private persons to break open public streets, but that will be a matter within the control of the local authorities themselves.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14.

DIRECTION BY LOCAL AUTHORITY AS TO MANNER OF CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 7, line 40, to leave out ' a person ' and to insert:
'the owner of any premises'.
This is a drafting Amendment. Throughout the Bill reference is made to the owner of premises in contexts such as this, and it is clearly desirable that Clause 14 should be consistent in this respect, particularly since it refers back to Clauses 12 and 13, which refer to the owner in the context of carrying out works.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 7, line 40, to leave out from 'drain' to 'authority' in line 41 and to insert:
' or sewer in respect of which notice has been given to the local authority by virtue of section 12(3) above or that subsection as applied by section 13 above, or sewage treatment works in respect of which notice has been given under subsection (2) below, the'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss the three following Government Amendments, No. 26, No. 27 and No. 28.

Mr. Buchan: These Amendments give effect to a Government undertaking in Committee to examine the drafting of Clause 14 with particular reference to the possibility of incorporating a requirement that the local authority should receive notice of works to which the Clause relates. The effect of Amendment

No. 25 is to provide that the powers of a local authority under Clause 14—under which they may direct that sewers and so forth are to be constructed in a different manner—are to be limited in the first place to private sewers and drains which are proposed to be connected to the public sewerage system, and, secondly, to private sewage treatment works.
These are the works in respect of which the local authority might wish to issue a direction under Clause 14, and this gets over the difficulty mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) in Committee, of having to give notice to the local authority of minor drains which could never form part of the public system. In the case of sewage treatment works, notice is required by the proposed new subsection (2) which Amendment No. 27 provides.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 26, in page 7, line 44 after ' provide ', insert:
'within 28 days of the receipt by them of the notice'.

No. 27, in page 7, line 47 at end insert:
(2) Where the owner of any premises proposes to construct sewage treatment works to serve those premises he shall give notice of his proposals to the local authority within whose area the works are to be situated.

No. 28, in page 8, line 2 leave out ' the foregoing subsection ' and insert ' subsection (1) above '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 8, line 6, at end to insert:
() A person to whom a direction is issued under this section shall, before commencing any work in pursuance of that direction, give not less than 3 days' notice to the local authority who issued it so as to enable them to supervise the execution of the work, and shall afford them all reasonable facilities for so doing.
In Committee, the Government accepted in principle an Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) which would have required a person to whom the local authority had given a direction under Clause 14 to give three days' notice of undertaking the work and allow the local authorities facilities for supervision. This Amendment gives effect to what the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to achieve.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16.

VESTING OF SEWERS AND OTHER WORKS IN LOCAL AUTHORITY.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 9, line 26, to leave out paragraph (c).
This is rather more than a drafting Amendment. It is very important. Subsection (1), (c) vests in the local authorities
all private sewers connecting with their sewers or sewage treatment works, whether constructed before or after the commencement of this section;
In Committee we tried to get some clarification or some easement of this for local authorities, with an Amendment to the effect that the private sewers should first of all he accepted as public sewers by a resolution of the council, which would have allowed it to stage these operations in a way which did not impose too heavy a financial burden on the council. The Amendment was not accepted and we have the subsection still in this form.
As was pointed out in Committee, this places a fairly substantial financial obligation on local authorities. I remind my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) said that, as a result of this Clause. Edinburgh would be faced with in annual bill of over £30,000. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that there was not a very clear definition of pipes or anything like that and that, unless there were a clearer definition in the Bill, there would be disputes between local authorities and owners in cases of blockage and so on, with the result that there would be delays.
Since then, I have had handed to me a letter raising again this whole question of lack of definition as well as the point about the substantial change which has to be made. It points out that, once this legislation comes into operation, a very substantial burden will be placed on local authorities. It says that the situation is further complicated by the lack of a precise definition of the word "building".

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot debate the Clause at the moment. We are discussing his proposed Amendment to delete subsection (1,c).

Mr. Willis: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance, but in order to decide what constitutes a private sewer we have to discuss what is a private sewer in relation to a building and this is all in relation to subsection (1). It is because of the lack of definition that local authorities—or at least a number of them—are concerned. The first point concerns the definition of "building". What does "drain" mean? According to the Bill,
drain ' … means any pipe or drain within the curtilage of … premises used solely for or in connection with the drainage of one building or of any buildings … within the same curtilage;
How does that affect, for example, terraced housing? The letter also refers to Regulation 137 of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations, 1963 which directs that the
… land on which the buildings are to be erected shall be deemed to form land in the same occupation notwithstanding that the buildings are intended for different occupation.
This, of course, could make a considerable saving to the local authority because, instead of its having to take the drain to each house, or each building, it just takes it to the one building. This is important in connection with subsection (1). It is likely, with a better definition, to place an even bigger burden upon the local authorities. I do not want to repeat all the submissions made to me, but the letter goes on:
It is interesting to speculate on the future interpretation of 'drain' and subsequently 'sewer' as defined in the Bill. Could the vertical waste and soil pipe in a block of flats be held to be not a 'drain' and therefore a 'sewer' maintainable by the local authority?
If so, this will add to the expenditure to be incurred by larger burghs.
Having studied this matter more fully since the Committee stage, I have discovered that there are many problems. There is a lack of clarity in the Bill. The definition Clause does not help much. It does not answer the question I have asked as to the proper interpretation of "drain" or "sewer". In Committee it was suggested that the Under-Secretary should seek to obtain the views of local authorities, an exercise that was not carried out before the Bill was introduced.
This provision places a substantial new burden upon local authorities. Whenever the Bill becomes operative, each local authority will be faced with


a substantial increase in its rate burden. This is the last thing we want to do without giving local authorities the opportunity of phasing it or of taking steps to prevent this burden from falling upon them at one blow.
The provision has caused considerable concern. There is a lack of precision in the Bill. No method is proposed by which a local authority can assume this new responsibility and this new expenditure in a manner which fits in with its ordinary administration and which is in the best interests of those whom it serves. I do not suppose that the Under-Secretary will accept the Amendment, but he should give us more information than we have been given up to the present about what this means. What are the definitions? What are the burdens? How does my hon. Friend expect local authorities to absorb this burden in a reasonable manner?

Sir John Gilmour: The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) spoke of the substantial new burden this provision will impose. Very substantial new burdens are being placed upon those who did not in the past pay full drainage rates. It this paragraph were deleted, their right to connect their drains would be removed and a substantial burden which they are carrying at the moment would not pass to the local authority. The local authority, although it is getting an extra burden, is acquiring a considerable number of new drainage ratepayers.

Mr. Willis: Not in the cities.

Sir J. Gilmour: That may be so, but it certainly applies in country districts. As a result of the Bill, local authorities will collect drainage rates from many people who did not previously pay them. The local authority may be assuming an extra obligation, but it will in perpetuity receive extra rates which will go a long way towards defraying the costs.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: At earlier stages we tried to outline the difficulties which will arise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is right in saying that this proposition means ever increasing burdens for local authorities. My county

is to dispense with special districts. I do not know how valid the argument of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is about new ratepayers. He and I were at one time members of the same local authority. If there had been special districts in the county of Fife, the amount paid in sewerage rates by new ratepayers, in view of the heavy capital cost of bringing in sewerage, would be very small.
Midlothian has special districts at present, but they are to be abolished under the Bill. Additional rates will be placed on many. I know that it may be argued that it will be equalised. When in Committee the question of a local authority being responsible for internal drainage was discussed, I said in essence that a subsidy was being given to private housing. We were told that this would mean that private housing would be cheaper. My right hon. Friend and I said that we greatly doubted whether this was the way to give subsidies to private housing.
This issue is further bedevilled by the fact that nothing specific was said at earlier stages about how cities would be treated. In advance of the argument we said that surely we should not have amending legislation to the extent that the counties would be compelled to be responsible for internal sewerage while cities carried on as at present. We received a vague answer; my hon. Friend said that he was not yet in a position to tell us precisely what would happen. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) asked specifically whether there would be a change in relation to Edinburgh. I do not want to have to return to Midlothian and say, "We are having a revolutionary change. We are dispensing with special districts. We shall now be responsible for internal sewerage, but the ratepayers in Edinburgh are to carry on as before".
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will place us in an impossible position unless he can be more forthcoming. I hope that he can convince us that his propositions are sensible and will be beneficial to all ratepayers and that there will not be a difference between city, county and burgh. If that difference prevails, there will be nothing but confusion.

Mr. Dempsey: The House is indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for


Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for having tabled the Amendment. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but it is obvious to me that unless the paragraph is deleted there will be a widespread imposition on Scottish local authorities. I do not think there is any doubt about that, because if local authorities are to take private sewers into public ownership we are entitled to know how many private sewers there are in Scotland and what is the annual maintenance cost of these. These are subjects about which we should have information. What surprises me is that we have not heard any member of the Opposition say that he is opposed to this form of nationalisation. They are obviously in favour of it because they realise that some speculators will be relieved of a financial burden which can be prodigious having regard to the nature of the work involved. We are entitled to have some details of what the local authorities will be taking into public ownership.
Where is the demarcation line between what is taken into the ownership of the local authority and what remains in private ownership? I have been able to follow the reasoning that some people will be worse off because they will be paying increased rates. If this subsection means that the services will be taken over by the local authority, then I can see that as regards rented houses, in which tenants pay increased rents according to rent tribunals and where the houses have not been repaired and the services have not been improved, it will cost them a lot extra if they have also to meet the cost of local authority ownership of sewerage services.
My right hon. Friend should make it clear what standard of maintenance will be acceptable by the local authorities before they take over. Before local authorities take over and maintain private roads these have to be made up to certain standards. We want to hear what are the acceptable standards to be laid down before the local authorities take on such a financial burden.
Having said that, I should like to know if my hon. Friend can give us some figures as to the cost of this project to the local authorities in Scotland. Will this cost be considerable and how is it of be refunded? To what extent, after having worked out the cost, will the local

authorities be able to claim repayment? Have they got to get some specific elements of the rate support grant to meet this cost or will there be a direct approved expenditure grant towards the cost of taking over and maintaining these private sewers? It is quite possible that the maintenance of the private sewers will be as costly as, if not more costly than, the actual acquisition. I think it is wrong for any decision to be taken in the House of Commons on a blank cheque basis without the facts and figures, the costs and financial implications, being known to this body. This is a reasonable approach to the problem. I do not want to be difficult, and it is not that I wish to embarrass my hon. Friend or his colleagues, but we are rather apprehensive about giving a blank cheque to any one to indulge in such a financial and physical transaction about the economies of which we know nothing. This is not a businesslike way of managing any enterprise, whether it concerns sewerage, roads, housing or any other Department of the Scottish Office.
On the basis of what my hon. Friend replies I shall make up my mind and take a decision. I require to strike a balance. I may fully support my right hon. Friend's Amendment, but if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can relieve my mind of any inordinate financial worries I shall be very pleased to help him in his effort to get this Bill approved this evening. I was not a Member of the Committee and did not have an opportunity to raise these points. I have spent too many years in local government not to appreciate the financial implications of this particular subsection, and I should not be doing my duty to my constituents or to Scotland if I did not raise these pertinent points now. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give me a satisfactory answer because on his reply will depend my action in connection with my right hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Buchan: We have had a long debate on this and to some extent it covered some of the points dealt with in the discussion in the Committee stages and also in the discussion on Clause 1. I do not want to go into all the aspects which have been raised. The question whether Members opposite approve of this form of nationalisation could be a


double-edged argument on this side, too, because we are concerned to try to create the best possible kind of public sewerage. I think the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) put his finger on one of the sensitive points in the whole Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) raised the question of costs. It is a bit difficult to estimate these. He regards this as a blank cheque but with a thing like this it is quite impossible to make an accurate estimate of everything that constitutes a private sewer. It was said in the Committee that Edinburgh had estimated that it might be of the nature of £30,000.

Mr. Willis: Very little cost.

Mr. Buchan: It might be a very little cost. A lot will depend on what is involved at any one point in the way of maintenance, and so on, but that is the estimate that was made. However, the cost cannot be defined very accurately, although hon. Members will have seen the reference to the estimate which we made in the original drafting of the Bill of £100,000 up to 1970. An hon. Member raised the point whether this specific item of local government expenditure would be covered by the rate support grant in the normal way, as happens at the present time. It would and to some extent sewerage may also attract a grant under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act of 1944 and the Local Employment Acts of 1960 to 1966. I think this covers most of the hon. Member's worries on this point.
The effect of the paragraph he is referring to here depends on the definition of "drain" and "private sewer", as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, and I wish I could have a blackboard with me—as I said in the Committee—so as to try to explain this, because it is highly complicated. I hope the wording of my previous explanation in Committee was clear. If not, I regret that we do not yet use charts and blackboards so that I could illustrate it. However, a drain is a pipe which lies within the curtilage of the premises and serves only that curtilage. If it goes into the street or into a neighbouring property or serves more than one curtilage it ceases to be a drain and becomes a private sewer. It

then becomes the responsibility of the local authority. I accept that the definition of "private sewer", "public sewer" and "drain" in our definition Clause is not particularly helpful, but that is the clearest definition I can give to the hon. Member and that is what we have in mind.

Mr. Willis: What about the tenement building with the drain running down it?

Mr. Buchan: This is one of the difficulties. Houses in a terrace normally stand each inside its own curtilage. There is a different definition in the building regulations but there it is for a different purpose, where the whole terrace might reasonably be regarded as one building. But I appreciate the difficulty, particularly concerning the use of the word "building", which is not defined.

Mr. Willis: Why cannot the definition used in the Building Regulations of 1963 be accepted for the purposes of this Bill?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: For the simple reason that a different function is being performed. It often happens that a sewer within the same curtilage serves a common purpose. If the sewer were in the street, we should all accept that it would be a public sewer, but by the accident of serving a whole area but being within the curtilege of the structure of the terrace or tenement house it is not.
We have had further consultations with local authorities, including the Edinburgh Corporation, as I promised in Committee we should do. The local authorities are not confused about the meaning of paragraph (c), although some of them indicated that they thought that it placed an excessive responsibility on local authorities. I cannot accept the intention of the Amendment—that there should be no responsibility on local authorities. Private sewers serve substantial numbers of properties, which should be a public responsibility, and which, incidentally, from time to time involve private owners in difficulties because of costs, and so on. Many of them lie in streets, but some are in back gardens. We think that local authorities should have an obligation to maintain this kind of apparatus and that paragraph (c) is


a method of achieving it. We have indicated to the local authorities that we are prepared to consider other methods of achieving the same object, but it is a matter of great difficulty and an alternative formula is not easy to produce.
It has been suggested that a sewer should not be taken over unless we are satisfied, on the analogy of the private street, that it is in good repair. But again there is a practical difficulty, since in most cases it would be necessary to dig up the sewer to discover whether it was sound, and it is by no means clear who would have to pay for that. If the sewer were exposed, there would be no difficulty.

Mr. Dempsey: We know of sewer pipes which, due to lack of supervision, were not properly concreted in the earth and as a result eruption occurred. Does my hon. Friend think that local authority should accept the financial responsibility of properly reconcreting and rebedding the pipes, which should have been done when they were laid by the private owner?

Mr. Buchan: Before there is a takeover, local authorities have power to ensure that pipes are not in that condition. It is the local authority's responsibility to deal with the matter.
I recognise that a great deal of the difficulty stems from the definition Clause. It does not help very much to say that
'private sewer' means any sewer which is not a public sewer.
But it is not at that point that difficulty arises. The difficulty stems from the word "drain". I am prepared to have another look at the definition of "drain" to see whether it may be modified. I cannot promise that we shall be able to arrive at a satisfactory definition. It is a complicated question. I am not sure that our definition is not necessarily right, but my mind is not closed to making an alteration if a satisfactory alternative definition can be found.

Mr. Willis: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that he has had, and is, till having, conversations with local authorities about easing the difficulty of finding methods of taking over sewers in a more satisfactory way?

Mr. Buchan: I said that I was prepared to look again at the definition of "drain". We have had discussions with the local authorities, as I promised in Committee, but we adhere to our view that the basic principle of paragraph (c) is correct.
Concern has been expressed about the cost of take-overs, but hon. Members will be aware that there is another aspect of the Bill. Various provisions in the Bill will not be implemented until conditions are such that they should be implemented. But certainly there has been no move to alter the intention as it appears in the Clause and to which I must adhere.

Mr. Willis: With the permission of the House, may I say that I did not expect that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would accept the Amendment. But the discussion has performed a useful service in showing us that my hon. Friend has gone to some pains to pursue the matters which we raised in Committee.
I am glad that my hon. Friend has consulted some local authorities about the problems which arise from paragraph (c). I hope that there will be further consideration of the definitions and that what my hon. Friend said about bringing the provisions into operation will meet the fears of local authorities. In view of the forthcoming way in which he has dealt with this matter, and since we spent a long time on it in Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17.

LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY TAKE OVER PRIVATE SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 10, line 3, after may ' insert:
', by agreement with the owner of the works, or failing agreement'.

Mr. Speaker: We can take at the same time Amendments No. 33 and No. 35.

Mr. Buchan: In Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) moved a series of Amendments to Clause 17, the effect of which would have been to provide for


agreements between local authorities and owners of private sewage treatment works for the taking over of such works by the local authority. Only in case of failure to reach agreement could the local authority invoke the procedure of taking over the works by notice.
We accepted the principle underlying those Amendments and undertook to look at the matter before Report. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that our Amendments achieve his aim.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 10, line 18, leave out from 'notice' to 'decision' in line 20 and insert:
'appeal to the Secretary of State who may confirm the proposals of the local authority and any conditions so specified either with or without modification or refuse to confirm them, and his'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take at the same time Amendment No. 34.

Mr. Buchan: This was one of the climactic moments in Committee. The effect of these Amendments is to substitute an appeal to the Secretary of State for the appeal to be the sheriff under Clause 17. This implements the undertaking which we gave in Committee after a long and protracted struggle on other parts of the Clause. No doubt the Amendment will rejoice the hearts of hon. Members opposite.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 33, in page 10, line 22, after them ', insert:
'in accordance with the terms of any agreement made under subsection (1) above, or Failing such agreement';

No. 34, in line 24, leave out ` sheriff' and insert ' Secretary of State ';

No. 35, in line 30, at beginning insert:
'An agreement under subsection (1) above or '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Clause 18.

EXPENSES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND DISSOLUTION OF DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 11, line 17, leave out 'five' and insert 'seven'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I propose that we discuss Amendment No. 37, in page 11, line 17, leave out ' five' and insert 'nine'.
Amendment No. 38, in page 11, line 19, leave out 'year' and insert 'five years'.
Amendment No. 39, in page 11, line 20, leave out 'second' and insert 'sixth'.
Government Amendment No. 40.
Amendment No. 41, in page 11, line 21, leave out ' third ' and insert 'seventh'.
Government Amendment No. 42.
Amendment No. 43, in page 11, line 22, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'eighth'.
Government Amendment No. 44.
Amendment No. 45, in page 11, line 23, leave out 'fifth' and insert 'ninth'.
Government Amendments No. 46 and No. 47.

Mr. Buchan: When the Bill was in Committee there was a very lengthy discussion on the principles of Clause 18, which lasted pretty well all day. At the end of that discussion we undertook to reconsider the length of time allowed in subsection (4) for the transition from the existing rating arrangements, with the cost of sewerage falling substantially on special district sewer rates charged in special drainage districts, to a system in which the cost of sewerage will fall on the general county rate.
These Amendments substitute for the five-year period in subsection (4) a transitional period of up to seven years. There is a consequential change in the amount of rates that can be raised during that period in the former special drainage districts. For the first two years, instead of the first year, the sum raised by the transitional rate may be as much as the yield of the former special district sewer rate. Thereafter, the proportion drops by 15 per cent., instead of by 20 per cent., for each of the remaining five years until in the seventh year it falls to not more than 25 per cent. of the yield of the former special district sewer rate. A local authority can, of course, switch over to charging the whole cost to the general county rate, if it wishes, over a shorter transitional period. The percentages quoted in subsection (4), both as drafted and as proposed to be amended, are maxima.

Mr. Michael Noble: I hope that the Under-Secretary will not feel that I have been remiss in my duties. On many occasions when Amendments have been made in response to commitments, it is right that one should get up and say "Thank you". I thought it would be tedious if I got up and said "Thank you" so often to things which we suggested should be done and which, on consideration, it has been decided should be done. My "Thank you" on this Amendment is modified because Clause 18 was difficult. It brings in what both sides of the House, including the Liberal Party, which does not appear to be represented today, felt was a serious problem, because many people in rural areas would have to pay rates for something they did not receive and were unlikely to receive in many areas.
We discussed this problem in detail for a whole morning. Reading the account of our debate, I am still certain that the Amendment which we are making today marginally improves the situation, because it gives a slightly longer period. However, it does not remove the basic objection in principle for the county councils in the rural areas who were opposed to the new scheme which the Minister has brought in under this Clause. The county councils asked us to do everything that we could to improve it one way or another. I hope that before we leave the Clause the Minister will be able to tell us the names of the county councils which he said were not against the proposal. He said that there was a number not against the proposal. We asked him on four or five occasions during the morning which they were but he had not the names with him. They were not on his cuff at the time. He has now had several weeks and I am sure he will be able to tell us which they were.
The evidence that we had and have had since then shows that county councils with mainly rural populations are seriously worried about the effect of this Clause on a great many of their ratepayers. When they see that there is an extra two years in which to continue their present system I am sure this will be some relief, but it will not solve the principle that they were against. Therefore, their appreciation of what the Minister has been able to do will be distinctly modified.
If it is churlish not to say "Thank you" for small relief, then I will say "Thank you", but I hope that before long the Minister will be convinced that this is an inequitable principle in rural areas. Perhaps it will take until the Bill comes into operation—and by that time the Minister is unlikely still to be in charge of any part of Scotland, though that is neither here nor there—but I believe that the Scottish Office will have to look into this again fairly soon after it comes into operation because it will not work in its present form.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) referred to county councils in rural areas being opposed to the provisions of this Bill, and particularly this Clause. As recently as this morning I received a telegram from the clerk to my county council asking that we press for modification, as we did in Committee. Although we have this slight concession from the Government—and we welcome it—I hope that they will again consult with the local authorities on this vital question which affects the sparsely populated rural areas. I hope, too, that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us which county councils were in favour of this proposal. I hope that he will get down to this and possibly, when the Bill goes to another place, will incorporate what we originally asked for in our Amendments in Committee. If he cannot go that far, I hope that he will at least incorporate the Amendments on the Order Paper standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro).

Mr. Hector Monro: I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) in giving a limited welcome to this Amendment. It is a little better than we had before. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will remember that he scraped home by only one vote on what was the most important debate in Committee.
The principle has not really been changed. All he has managed to do is to


change the five-year transitional period to seven years. That has not altered the same principle that we opposed in the Water Bill, namely, that many people will have to pay for a service that they are unlikely to receive. Hon. Members on this side were able to quote various local authority figures: 60 per cent. in Dumfries, 50 per cent. in Wigtownshire, 54 per cent. in Roxburgh, and 60 per cent. in Perth. These were the figures of those who, during the transitional period, would begin paying higher rates and receive nothing in return. Nor do we get any alleviation under Clause 10, which relates to the emptying of septic tanks. There is no doubt that the ratepayers being most harshly treated by the provisions of what in general is a most helpful Bill are those in the rural areas who will never receive the service.
I accept that this two-year increase is a step in the right direction, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give careful thought and a favourable reception to the suggestion that the nine year period would be better still. I hope, too, that as he promised in Committee, he will tell us which rural councils are supporting his proposal. When we were discussing the matter upstairs, he said:
I do not know which counties off the cuff, but I hope I can give him the answer later. I have been assured that is so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1968; c. 346]
The hon. Gentleman has had rather more than a month in which to find out which counties are supporting him on this method of paying rates.
I give the Amendment limited support, but I still hope that he will accept our Amendments, which are very much better.

Mr. Buchan: It is always a consolation to be thanked by the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), even though he always waits for the opportunity when his thanks can be slightly barbed.
I think that one of the difficulties which hon. Gentlemen opposite are facing is that they have moved in our direction. What has now happened is that, with this Amendment, they have accepted the basic principle which we put forward in Committee, because they are now trying to modify our proposal by a period of an extra two years. For this, too, I must give

thanks that the light sometimes strikes in strange places.
We have extended the period from five years to seven to make things easier. The Opposition have suggested nine years. I suspect that if we had put down nine years, they would have suggested eleven. There is no argument in favour of nine years. This is really stretching it beyond the crack of doom, because one must remember that the various provisions of the Bill will not be brought into effect until the Secretary of State decides that they should be. They will not come into operation straight away. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have accepted the principle, and we are disagreeing only about the number of years—seven years, as against nine.

Mr. Noble: To keep the record straight, perhaps I might tell the hon. Gentleman that we are not accepting the principle, but we have been in this House for long enough to know that if we put down the same Amendment as we tabled in Committee and ask Mr. Speaker to consider it for discussion on Report it will not be called. That is the simple fact, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should try to pretend that we have accepted something which I assure him we have not.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Buchan: As my right hon. Friend suggests, it might be more suitable if the Opposition were to withdraw their Amendment, as there does not appear to be any principle behind it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) based their Amendment on a firm principle. The right hon. Member for Argyll has not based his Amendment on any principle whatsoever.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the North Eastern Water Board put forward a provisional water Order to make provision for an interim period of nine years? There is, therefore, a good precedent for suggesting nine years in this case.

Mr. Buchan: I am sorry, but I did not altogether follow that. If the hon. Gentleman is recognising that that is an interim measure, that is fair enough.
I think that we must adhere to the Government's Amendment. I accept that


the county councils, particularly those outside the central belt, will need time to provide sewerage services for their areas, and the purpose of a traditional period is to recognise that need.
I come, now, to the question whether I undertook to name the rural councils which supported our proposal. This is to some extent an invention by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). In Committee I said:
Not all counties are opposed to the proposals.
The hon. Member for Dumfries asked:
Would the hon. Gentleman tell us which rural counties of Scotland are in favour?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1968; c. 345–6.]
I did not refer to rural counties being in favour.

Mr. Noble: rose—

Mr. Buchan: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue my speech.
The Bill will not become operative until we recognise that the economic climate is such that local authorities can reasonably be expected to start expanding their sewerage services. Thereafter, they will have seven years in which to make the provision which would justify finally charging the whole cost of sewerage to the general county rate. This is not only a matter of providing main drainage. What we have in mind is the provision of small sewerage treatment works, often in the form of septic tanks. At the moment almost all the rural county councils are meeting the cost of sewerage, to a substantial extent from the general rates. This is often forgotten by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There are a few rural counties in which the contribution from the general rate is less than one-third of the total rate income, and in several it is substantially more than half. I think that I quoted some of these figures in Committee.
If the present standard of service justifies that level of contribution from the general rate, I do not think it is unrealistic to take the view that local authorities can do enough work in seven years to justify the transition to charging the whole cost to the general rate. In the nature of things, the general rate will very largely be paid by people living in the existing special drainage districts,

since these tend to be the most heavily populated areas.
In addition, I have grave doubts about the initial period of five years suggested in the Opposition's proposal. Our suggestion is seven years. Here we are extending the first year of waiting to two years of waiting, and a phase-out from then onwards. The Opposition have put forward this cabalistic figure of nine. They have put in a five year waiting period, with a decrease in rates to the end point. I envisage a situation in which sewerage services will be improved outside the special drainage districts. We are anxious that this should happen as quickly as possible after the Bill becomes operative, and when it begins to happen I think that there will be a certain justice in transferring some of the burden of rates away from those who are living in the former special drainage districts.
I accept that local authorities will need time to prepare for the new conditions, but I doubt whether a period of as long as five years is necessary. To some extent the fixing of priorities and advance planning can be done before the Bill becomes operative, even though the work cannot be undertaken immediately. Apart from that, it seems to me possible that the period in which special district sewer rates can continue to be charged in full will be regarded by some local authorities as a period in which they need not attempt to improve their existing services, and I should not like these first five years, after all the argument and discussion that has gone into this, to be regarded by these councils as a period of total inactivity. For this reason I prefer our proposal to give a two-year standstill.
The other detailed figures both in the Government Amendment, and in the Opposition one, represent a smooth transition, and I do not want to comment on them. To some extent this is narrowed down to being a matter of judgment. The transitional period allowed for in the Government Amendment will not expire before 1976 at the earliest, because the rating provisions should come into force at the beginning of a local authority financial year, that is, on 15th May of the appropriate year. The earliest possible date will be 16th May, 1969. Under the Bill it will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State, which will mean at


least 1976, and I hope that the Opposition will not push an Amendment which will mean pushing our more sensible proposal into the almost literal millenium.

Mr. Noble: I tried to intervene earlier. The hon. Gentleman took up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) about naming the councils which were not opposed to this proposal. The hon. Gentleman read only part of the discussion. In Committee the hon. Gentleman said:
'Not all counties are opposed to the proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries asked:
Would the hon. Gentleman tell us which rural counties of Scotland are in favour?
to which the Minister replied:
We might be able to deal with that later.
The hon. Gentleman was asked again, and he said:
If I can find the answer … I will give it to the hon. Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee; 5th March, 1968; cc. 345–6.]
It is no good his trying to say now that he did not mean that. All he has to do is say straight that there are no rural counties, or, if he likes to go further, that there are no counties at all which take this view. We would accept that he made a mistake, but let us have no more of this double talk.

Mr. Buchan: I am not sure that any double talk is involved. I said:
If I can find the answer before the morning is up I will give it to the hon. Gentleman … I hope I can give him the answer later."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1968, c. 346.]
I still cannot give him the answer, but I certainly fulfilled what I said, and this was not a matter only of rural counties.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: The Under-Secretary is being unnecessarily obtuse, which is one of the reasons why the Committee stage took longer than any of us expected. Everyone can make a mistake. If he made a mistake and can now say at least that some counties—I would have thought that it was easy enough to limit it to some rural counties, but let us extend it, if it makes it easier for the hon. Gentleman, to any counties at all—support this proposal, we would accept that. There would be no disgrace in his admitting a slip of the tongue in

Committee, and it would save an enormous amount of time if the hon. Gentleman made a clean breast of it. We should like to know whether any counties at all favour this method, or, better still, if any rural counties do. If he cannot tell us, I should be grateful if he would say so and we can then pass on to the next business.
I was not impressed by the hon. Gentleman's criticism that we have abandoned the principle of our Amendment. He must know that we cannot discuss again now the principle of our original Amendment in Committee. If he can tell us how we could do so, we should be happy to argue it again, but it is not in order, so we are justified in raising the matter again to try to improve the position which was left after Committee.
Nor was I impressed by the hon. Gentleman's insistence that, by trying to lengthen the period in which there would be no change, we were delaying the implementation of the Bill. In the first place, the Government are delaying it indefinitely since no date has been placed on its implementation. For him to criticise us for writing in a certain delay is a two-edged argument. He says that we are postponing it to the millenium, but he is postponing it infinitely. It is not logical for him to criticise us.
We are trying to mitigate the financial effects of the Bill on people who will never, in the foreseeable future, benefit from it. Yet they will eventually, even under our Amendments, have to pay a proportion of the cost. These Amendments have the support, I think, of every county council in Scotland. That is surely a good reason for the hon. Gentleman to be sympathetic and accept our Amendments, which are more generous than his.

Mr. Willis: I am intrigued by the vigorous interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite and their worthy desire to protect people from paying for something which will not benefit them, but I did not notice them supporting me and my hon. Friends, in Committee or here, in trying to do the same for the people in the cities—to prevent ratepayers being compelled to pay additional rates for something which would not affect them. Why this discrimination? After all, many people in


the cities do not enjoy high standards of life and can no more afford this payment than those in the rural counties. I wonder why this dichotomy of thought—

Mr. Noble: Of course we sympathise with city ratepayers who have to pay more, but they are at least getting the drains and the sewage. We are trying to help those who are getting nothing.

Mr. Willis: Hon. Gentlemen did not support those in the cities who will get nothing additional for an additional payment. I will get no benefit by paying for sewers for people moving into private housing estates in Barnton and other areas, but I will have to pay for them, under the Bill. We graciously accepted that this was the right social approach: we all pay for things which do not benefit us. I have no one at school, but I pay about £30 or £40 a year rates for education. There is a whole list of similar obligations. This is the basis of our society, that we help people—

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to persuade the House that he has had no education?

Mr. Willis: I have had considerable education in the Scottish Grand and Standing Committees, in the House and in my political life, which enables me to realise the ideology which is usually behind the propositions of hon. Members opposite. It is slightly out of date and should be replaced with something more suited to the modern world.
My hon. Friend has gone out of his way to meet their request with Amendments which try to be helpful and they should be grateful for this spirit of compromise and good will. He has shown the reasonable and non-political attitude which one expects of an administrator in this Government. Hon. Gentlemen should pay tribute to this instead of being so grudging. When we were in opposition, we always expressed gratitude, in a fulsome way, when it was called for—although it was only rarely that I had to do it. In fact, I can think of only one occasion in 13 years. Hon. Gentlemen should say that they appreciate the Government's difficulties and are grateful for the help which they are giving.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Although I did not have the privilege to serve on the Committee which considered the Bill, I am interested in the principle being adduced by some hon. Gentlemen opposite that even if one does not receive a service one must pay for it. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) gave the example of education. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned roads, saying that not every road went to the door of every croft in every county in Scotland. The example of the right hon. Gentleman showed the fallacy of his case because one need only listen to him to identify the complexity, depth and sophistication of his education—and he had to pay rates to get it.
The argument that although one does not receive a service one should still pay for it for the benefit of others is unfair because in this day and age, when relics of that system still exist, our aim should be to reduce them and not to use them as a premise for legislation. For that reason the Government should accept the Opposition proposal.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: At a late stage in the day the debate has suddenly taken on an unexpected ideological overtone. I am in the somewhat embarrassing position of not agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in matters affecting the Highlands. He is the doyen, the architect, of many advances in the Highlands and is very much aware of the issues facing us. On this occasion, however, I have some sympathy with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
As I expressed my views on the Clause at considerable length at an earlier stage of the Bill—along with my fears about the inequity of the transitional arrangements—it is unnecessary for me to cover the ground again, particularly since the Amendments, both Government and Opposition, are, in principle, not different. We must choose between two clear evils and there is nothing to be said for the Opposition proposals over those of the Government.
There are those in the Highlands who feel reluctant to go the whole way with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East in the view that they should pay for services which they not only do not get but which they will not


stand a chance of getting in the forseeable future. This state of affairs is only too common in the Highlands, where some of the services which are taken for granted in the more populous parts of Scotland are beyond the horizon. I therefore find myself reluctantly accepting the Under-Secretary's argument. There is no principle behind the Opposition stand. It is a simple illustration of opposing for the sake of opposition. I cannot enthusiastically support the Government Amendments, although I accept that they somewhat ameliorate the position.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I rise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have felt so much at home during this discussion that I thought I was back in the old Scottish Committee. I felt that I could not let the occasion pass without making the few remarks.
The issue is not as simple or as black and white as some hon. Members have suggested. We are trying to provide a service where no service exists, and we want to be fair to everyone. It has been suggested that we are asking local authorities to take over far too much and to provide benefits which people are not at present getting at the expense of the rest of the population. If there is any place in which our sewerage service is bad, it is the rural areas of Scotland. It is there that we can make improvements, but we will never make them as long as we have special sewerage districts. It is as simple as that.
We appreciate that the cost of providing this service will be considerable for local authorities. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite refer to the attitude of local authorities and county councils towards the Clause, I suggest that that opposition may be related not to how it will apply to individuals but to how it will apply to the finances of local authorities. Once the special districts are abolished and people are paying more and more, when they have hitherto not been paying so much, there will be a greater demand for this service to be applied to them. It will then not be possible to relate this matter to, for example, the provision of electricity and the expense of the subsidy that is provided by the rest of the community who are linked up in the supply of electricity.

This is merely a question of checks and balances.
When hon. Gentlemen opposite question the transitional period, it is wrong for them to say that the Bill is being held up and that we have no right to talk about an extra two years. Whatever the delay, it was suggested in one Amendment—it has not been called—that it would be two years beyond that. I believe that we have struck a happy medium by having the period of seven years. I would have liked the five-year period, which was the original suggestion, but we have decided to advance it by a further two years.
This will be a reasonable time in which local authorities can improve their services and I am sure that an improvement will take place. As we want to ensure the proper dispersal of our population, it is desirable that this step is made. Many of the people who do not have the advantage of such a service have complained about this lack and I hope that there will be a diminishing number of people who will be penalised by the lack of this service. I am convinced that we must take this step. Unless we do, we will never achieve the improvement we must have.
A lot of fuss has been made about what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in Committee one morning. It is usual form for a Minister to say: "If I can, I will find out". He spoke about counties and not about rural counties—about counties which have less rural territory and which are less concerned about this aspect. He did not give a list in which they were named and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will not produce a list of every county which supports him in his argument.

Mr. Younger: I do not want to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman nor to the Under-Secretary, but the Under-Secretary said that not all local authorities were against this. Could he give the name of just one?

Mr. Ross: He did not say that all the counties are opposed to the purpose. He did not think they were all opposed and then someone took him up on the non-rural counties. I think we are making far too much of this in relation to the numbers.

Mr. Younger: Can the right hon. Gentleman clear this point up? The last thing I want to do is to waste time, but in Committee on 5th March the Under-Secretary said:
Not all counties are opposed to the proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March 1968; c. 345.]
That is perfectly clear. Was that true, or was it not?

Mr. Ross: From the point of view of counties declaring their position, that is true. People who oppose write in to say that they oppose, but generally speaking those who are in favour do not give that indication.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Ross: No, I am not giving way.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Gentleman should explain to the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The right hon. Gentleman has not given way.

Mr. Ross: We have been wasting a lot of time on something which does not matter in relation to the principle. So far as my hon. Friend understands, and this is still the position officially, not all counties are opposed.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Ross: Usually when people are concerned about opposition they let us know. The proposal which the Government has put forward is a reasonable compromise which gives time for works to be done and for people to appreciate a changed situation and to prepare for it. There is a seven-year transitional period, p us the time until the actual appointed date. I hope that the House will accept tt at and will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 40, in. page 11, line 20, leave out 80 per cent of'.
No. 42, in line 21, leave out '60' and insert '85'.
No. 44, in line 22, leave out '40 ' and insert '70'.
No. 46, in line 23, leave out '20 ' and insert '55'.

No. 47, in line 23, at end insert:
(f) for the sixth year, 40 per cent. in the relevant sum;
(g) for the seventh year, 25 per cent. of the relevant sum.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Clause 20.

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE RESULTING FROM EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER THIS PART OF THIS ACT.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 12, line 16, at end insert 'loss, injury or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 49 and 50.

Mr. Buchan: In Committee this Clause of the Bill was amended at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) to provide for the payment of compensation in respect of loss or injury as well as of damage. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are purely consequential and Amendment No. 50 is a minor drafting improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 49, in line 27, at end insert 'loss, injury or'.

No. 50, in line 28, after 'sustained', insert 'by him'.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Clause 27.

PROCEDURE ON APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO NEW DISCHARGE.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 15, line 10, leave out person who ' and insert:
'body acting under statutory powers which'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments Nos. 52, 57 and 58.

Mr. Buchan: The effect of Amendment No. 51 is to ensure that a copy of a trade effluent notice is not sent by the local authority under Clause 27(4) to any private person or concerns. When the Bill was in Committee there was considerable discussion and some disquiet expressed lest under this Clause information might be given to other traders which would enable them to discover trade


secrets. We promised to consider this and the effect of the Amendment will be that only authorities acting under statutory powers will receive information. The question of information going to trade competitors should not therefore arise.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 52, in page 15, line 13, leave out 'person to whom' and insert 'body to which'.[Mr. Buchan.]

Clause 29.

DECISION ON APPLICATION.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 16, line 17, leave out from 'the' to 'cooling' and insert:
'elimination from or the diminution in any trade effluent of'.
This Amendment implements an undertaking in Committee to reconsider the wording of paragraph (f) of Clause 29(3). As drafted the paragraph would seem to leave the local authority with no discretion save to exclude all cooling water from trade effluent. The intention is that the local authority should be enabled to control the discharge of cooling water in trade effluent accepting as much of it as it thinks reasonable. The Amendment makes the necessary drafting alteration.

Amendment agreed to.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 16, line 18, at end insert:
(g) the prevention of any injury to the health of persons engeged in carrying out the functions of the authority under this Act as a result of the discharge of any trade effluent into the sewers;
The effect of the Amendment is to include, in the list of conditions that a local authority can attach to the discharge of a trade effluent, a specific reference to conditions to protect the health of workers in the local authority's sewerage undertaking. The Amendment meets an undertaking given in Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) moved an Amendment with the same purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 17, line 4, after 'revenue', insert 'or saving'.
This is a small Amendment, which, through an oversight on my part, I did not put down on Committee stage. It is to introduce another criterion which should fall to be considered in the variety of circumstances spelled out in the paragraph in which it appears. It is an Amendment which ought to commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Buchan: There is always a temptation to hope that the Amendment will commend itself to hon. Members opposite. I cannot accept it. In the first place, it is unnecessary. I hoped to get some clarification but, as I thought, it means what it says. There is nothing further to it, and it is not necessary.
If one looks at page 16 from line 40 onward, one sees:
… regard being had to the nature and composition and to the volume and rate of discharge of the trade effluent so discharged, to any additional expense incurred or likely to be incurred by the authority in connection with the reception, treatment or disposal of the trade effluent …
It is, of course, a net expense, and to that extent anything that is a saving in it will be taken into consideration. Revenue can only refer to revenue from the sale of effluent by the authority under Clause 40. This revenue would be offset against the cost to the local authority of dealing with the effluent, and the local authority would have to take this into account in fixing charges. This kind of saving is therefore already covered.
I cannot think of any other kind of saving except the balancing of accounts. It is quite clear from the context that it is the physical possession of the effluent that is in question, and this would normally lead to greater expense, and not to a saving. The main thing is that it is already covered, and I hope the hon. Member will accept that.

Mr. Wylie: If the words "net additional expense" had appeared, it would have been perfectly clear. It was not clear to those advising me and it was not clear to me. In the light of the Minister's explanation that savings are taken into account in this way, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30.

INTIMATION OF DECISION.

Amendment made: No. 57, in page 18, line 4, leave out 'person to whom' and insert 'body to which'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 32.

REVIEW OF CONSENTS, CONDITIONS AND REFUSALS.

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 18, line 30, leave out 'person' and insert 'body'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 33.

MEANING OF EXISTING DISCHARGE.

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 19, line 16, leave out 'summarily'.

No. 60, in page 19, line 16, leave out from 'sheriff' to end of line 17 and insert:
'against whose determination an appeal shall lie to the Court of Session.'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 38.

KEEPING BY AUTHORITY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO DISCHARGES.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 61, in page 21, line 20, leave out Clause 38.
Clause 38 required a local authority to keep available for public inspection copies of decisions, directions and agreements made by them in relation to the discharge of trade effluent. The provision was intended to assist traders, by making it possible for them to discover on what kind of conditions the local authority allowed discharges in their area, and to satisfy themselves that the authority was adopting a uniform approach. It had genuinely been put in to assist the local trader. However, when the Bill was in Committee there were complaints that this might enable competitors to gain access to trade secrets, which could be deduced from the conditions imposed. The complaints originated from industrial interests, and if industry is worried about this provision, which was intended for their protection, then the safest thing is

to delete the Clause altogether, There does not seem to be any practical method of ensuring that when information is made public it will exclude all matter which might be of value to trade competitors.

Mr. Wylie: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the Amendment. I can assure him that this was a matter of concern to industrial interests. The Amendment he is promoting will be appreciated by industrialists in Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TO HAVE RIGHT TO SEWAGE.

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 22, line 24, after 'works', insert:
'and to the contents of any septic tank emptied by them under section 10(1) above'.

No. 63, in line 25, after 'sewage', insert 'or contents'.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 22, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
It was suggested in Committee that subsection (2) is unnecessary. Clause 40 restates the substance of Section 108 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, which sets the precedent for spelling out the powers contained in subsection (2). It is fair to point out that local authorities must be specifically empowered to carry out functions before they can spend money. However, we have looked at this again, and we think the necessary powers are sufficiently implied in subsection (1), and that the deletion of subsection (2) is justified.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47.

CERTAIN MATTER NOT TO BE PASSED INTO DRAINS.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 24, line 20, at end insert:
Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under this section if he proves that at the time he so


passed or permitted to be passed the matter or substance concerned he did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, that it would be likely to have the aforementioned effects.
When the Bill was in Committee we considered proposed Amendments by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) to import into the Clause a qualification to the effect that an offence would be committed only if polluting matter were passed knowingly into the sewerage system. The important word is "knowingly". While accepting in principle that something of the sort was desirable, we explained that there is some difficulty in producing an Amendment in an acceptable form. Now that we have had a chance to give more thought to this, we move this Amendment which we think covers the situation. It enables a person charged with an offence under Clause 47 to put forward the defence that he did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that his action would have the undesirable effects referred to in subsection (1).

Mr. Wylie: I welcome the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as the Clause stood, it was a very inequitable provision and imputed a statutory offence for which in many cases there could be no moral responsibility. The way that the problem has been resolved is satisfactory, although it switches the onus on to the accused to explain why he did not know. However, he should be in a position to do that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48.

RECOVERY OF EXPENSES BY LOCAL AUTHORITY.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 24, line 31, leave out from 'thereof' to 'on' and insert 'they may'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, we can take Amendment No. 67.

Mr. Buchan: The Amendment very much simplifies the drafting by substituting "they may" for the words "it

shall be competent for them to". I am indebted for the suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who raised the matter in Committee with a sharp, shrewd and correct piece of drafting which I am glad to accept.

Mr. Willis: I must express my gratitude to my hon. Friend. This ensures the insertion of a little gem, a piece of beautiful English in the midst of a welter of legal verbiage. Whether anyone will discover it, I do not know.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 67, in page 24, line 32, leave out second 'to'.[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 55.

LOCAL ENACTMENTS.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 28, line 40, leave out 'made by statutory instrument'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, we can take Amendments Nos. 69 to 72.

Mr. Ross: This must be a happy occasion for my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). In Committee, he asked whether orders made by me under subsections (2) and (3) can be prayed against, and I know his historic interest in this.
The effect of the Amendment is to make this possible. There is precedent for both ways, of course. However, on consideration, it appears right that there should be an opportunity for Parliament to discuss orders preserving or amending provisions of local Acts under Clause 55.

Mr. Willis: We had a long discussion on this Clause in Committee, during which I raised the possibility of our being allowed to pray against an order. I was prompted to pursue the matter on Report by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and I was surprised that he should wish to filibuster his own Bill by prompting me to do something. He suggested that I would be impelled to further action on Report. Taking his words literally, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and I framed Amendments in order to raise the matter again. My right hon. Friend has met


our wish, so that orders may be debated on a Prayer. That gives hon. Members the opportunity to raise any matter of importance when Orders dealing with Glasgow or Edinburgh are being discussed. That is what we wanted, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having met us.

Mr. Eadie: I would like to endorse the sentiment expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East to my right hon. Friend and thank him for his response, because during the whole of the course of the Bill we have always had to come back to the question whether Glasgow and Ayr and Edinburgh or some other local authority would be able to do something different from my own county of Midlothian. During the course of the discussion my right hon. Friend and I had sharp words—

Mr. Buchan: Not sharp.

Mr. Eadie: We had words about what the provision should be and I must express my gratitude to him for being so helpful.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 69, in page 29, line 11, leave out 'made by statutory instrument'.

No. 72, in page 29, line 12, at end insert:
(4) Any order made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 59.

INTERPRETATION.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 73, in page 31, line 41, after 'industry', insert 'carried on at trade premises'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 74.

Mr. Buchan: This and the following Amendment are drafting Amendments which require a little comment. Their effect is to relate the definition of "trade effluent'' more clearly to the premises at which the trade or industry is carried on, and to make it clear that, in relation to

any premises, "trade effluent" means effluent produced in the course of a trade or industry carried on at those premises. I believe this defines rather more clearly what is to be regarded as trade effluent in any particular circumstances. This problem was discussed in Committee.
It seems to me that the great problem is that contaminated water is still surface water and there is an obligation on the local authority to receive it into its sewers, with the caveat of proceedings under Clause 47 if it is such as to be likely to injure the sewerage system. In my view, that is the answer we want. The Amendments we are discussing, I should have thought, would make it very difficult to argue that contaminated surface water is trade effluent; and to that extent they assist towards a sensible approach to the problem of contaminated surface water.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 74, in page 31, line 42, at end insert:
'and, in relation to any trade premises, means any such liquid as aforesaid which is so produced in the course of any trade or industry carried on at those premises'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 75, in page 31, line 45, after 'experiment', to insert:
'and the carrying on of a hospital or a nursing home'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments No. 76 and No. 77.

Mr. Ross: This and the following two Amendments are primarily drafting Amendments designed to clarify the application of the Bill to a hospital or nursing home. The redrafted definition gives better effect to the original intention that effluent from hospitals and nursing homes should be treated in the same way as effluent from trade premises.

Mr. Younger: There was a further important point which I wish to raise with the right hon. Gentleman. That is, the question of zoological gardens which may not be specifically described as either agriculture or horticulture, or under any other heading. Some concern has been expressed whether there might not be a case for the specific inclusion of zoological gardens in case they are not covered by other definitions.

Mr. Buchan: I diligently inquired into this problem of zoological gardens and, the position seems to be perfectly all right.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 76, in page 32, line 2, at end insert 'or as a hospital or a nursing home'.

No. 77, in line 4 leave out from 'industry' to end of line 5.—[Mr. Ross.]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LEGITIMATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 5.

PROVISIONS RELATING TO RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN LEGITIMATION.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 30, after first 'that' insert 'when that person was born'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sidney Irving): It will be convenient for the House to discuss also Amendment 2, in line 30, leave out from 'was' to 'domiciled' in line 31.

Mr. Wylie: The Amendment is partly drafting, but it is also being used to clarify in our own minds, with the help of the Under-Secretary, the purpose and intentions behind the Clause, which was added in Committee. Initially the provisions of the Bill were somewhat along the lines of the provisions of Section 8 of the Legitimacy Act, 1926, and dealt with the qustion of the recognition of legitimations under foreign law. It is a somewhat technical field of discussion. I

hope that I shall not unduly bore the House in the process, but it is important.
The original proposal was clear, was readily understood, and, I repeat, followed the pattern of the 1926 Act. This is the provision which applies to England and Wales but not to Scotland:
Where the parents of an illegitimate person marry or have married one another, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and the father of the illegitimate person was or is, at the time of the marriage domiciled in a country, other than England or Wales, by the law of which the illegitimate person became legitimated by virtue of such subsequent marriage, that person, if living, shall in England and Wales be recognised as having been so legitimated from the commencement of this Act".
In other words, Parliament thought fit there to amend what I understand to be the rules of private international law that, to obtain recognition of legitimation under a foreign law, it was necessary for the father to be domiciled in a country recognising legitimation in this way both at the date of birth of the child and at the date of the subsequent marriage. The 1926 Act abolished the need for the father's domicile at the date of the marriage.
When the Bill came to us from the House of Lords, the corresponding provision it contained was readily identified with the provisions to which I have just referred. No exception was taken to any of the provisions of the Bill. Unfortunately, the Government deemed it necessary to take out the original Clause 2 and they inserted Clause 5 by way of a new Clause presented in Committee.
I understand that the reason was that very recently the House of Lords took a decision in a divorce case called Indyka in which it moved away from domicile of the husband as the basis of recognition of a foreign decree. The question of legitimation is equally a matter involving status.
The Under-Secretary was right to have regard to the possible impact the decision might have, and his explanations for radically altering the provisions of the Bill, albeit at that late stage, are tied up with that decision. At the first sitting of the Committee he said:
In its present form, the Clause—
that is, Clause 2 as it then was—
restates the existing law with its recommended amendments. What the present Clause says is that if, by the law of the foreign country


in which the father of an illegitimate person is domiciled at the time of the marriage of his father to his mother, that person is rendered legitimate, the law of Scotland will also recognise him as legitimate. That was the original intention of the Bill.
We have, however, come to the conclusion in consultation with the Law Commission—"—
the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Scottish Law Commission—
and hon Members will be aware of the background—that it would be unwise at present to codify the law about foreign legitimation this form.
I pause to point out that whatever view one may take of the case of Indyka, which concerned recognition of a foreign decree of divorce, the recognition of foreign legitimations in England is governed by Section 8 of the Legitimacy Act, 1926, and although in every other respect the Bill is intended to bring the law of Scotland on legitimation per subsequens matrimonium into line with the law of England, in this respect it seems to be parting company with it.
The hon. Gentleman went on:
The reason for this arises from a decision by the House of Lords given after the Law Commission's Report—a decision which, incidentally, has already been followed in two subsequent cases in England.
I should have thought it inevitable that it would be followed, because the decision of the House of Lords in an English appeal is binding on all lower courts in England.
Later the hon. Gentleman said:
Scots law at present relies on the general principle that, where a person is legitimated under a foreign legal system, he should be regarded as legitimate by Scots law only if the system is that of the country of the domicile. Clause 2, as it stands, restates this principle. But in the case to which I have already referred—the Indyka case—the House of Lords, for the first time, decided that the law of the domicile was not the only one to which the courts of this country might have regard in considering what the law governing the status—that is, the legal marital status—of a person should be.
It is accordingly quite clear that it is the decision in Indyka which has induced the Government to depart from the perfectly understandable and very clear terms of the Bill as it was originally presented to us after passing through the House of Lords. My concern is that I do not believe that the decision in Indyka is likely to have any bearing on Scottish law, and that the Government

are really being over-cautious in trying to leave the matter open for possible change in the law of Scotland. I understand that that was what the Minister was getting at when he said:
It is difficult to say what the full effect of this judgment will be on Scots law, particularly as it was given on appeal, admittedly to the House of Lords, from a decision of an English court. I am sure that neither we nor the Law Commission would care to predict how the law might develop from it in the long term. But what the Commission has said is that it would be unwise to enact in the Bill provisions such as those in the present Clause 2, which would not only prevent the Scottish courts from going as far as the House of Lords did in the Indyka case, but would inhibit any future development of the law which might flow from that decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 26th March, 1968; c. 7–8.]
The Indyka case was a highly special case. It concerned a man who had acquired a domicile of choice in England but who had married before the war a Czech national. He was himself at that time a Czech national. He was subsequently divorced under Czechoslovak law by his first wife. He then remarried and when being divorced by his second wife—he has had a most unhappy matrimonial career—he pleaded that this second marriage was void because the first one had never been dissolved, and that the reason it had not been dissolved was because, by international private law, the law of England could not recognise the Czechoslovak decree which proceeded not on his domicile at the material time but on the nationality of the wife.
It is true that the House of Lords departed in that case from the notion of domicile as being the governing feature in recognition of foreign decrees of divorce and accepted in that case the basis of nationality. But the Scottish Lord of Appeal in the House of Lords—Lord Reid—who delivered the leading speech, dissented from that view, basing his decision on a principle well recognised by the law of Scotland, certainly not on the basis of any principle of nationality.
I doubt whether there is any likelihood of Scottish courts being influenced by that decision. Nor is there a reasonable likelihood of the House of Lords imposing that essentially English decision on the Scottish law on an appeal taken from the Scottish courts.
It is not altogether correct to say that this is a new feature of English practice


because, so far as I can see, the English courts have been departing for a number of years from the question of domicile as being the basis for recognition or for actions involving status and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said in Committee—unfortunately I could not be there to assist in this matter—a very substantial departure from principle was taken by the English court in the case in re "P" in 1965 because, in that case, the court assumed jurisdiction to pronounce an order in relation to the custody of a child notwithstanding the fact that the father was not domiciled in this country and that the child, being in Israel, was outwith the jurisdiction of the English court at the material time. The basis of the court's decision there was the basis of ordinary residence.
I can say that this was a major departure as I see it from the principle of private international law because it went right in the face of what Professor Dicey in his book, "International Conflict of Law", seventh edition, said on page 390:
Domicile and not nationality is the relevant factor in determining jurisdiction.
The court disregarded that and disregarded the English laws of authority. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, on page 583, specifically stated that they were not going to follow the Scottish courts in this matter.
9.0 p.m.
Just as the English court rejected the Scottish court in this matter, so the Scottish court in a recent case last year has rejected this English line of authority and that is the case of Oludimu, in 1967. Where the court was pressed to accept the departure followed in England in the case to which I have referred, the Scottish court adhered to the basic international private law proposition—this was also a custody case, nonetheless involving status—that only the court of the domicile of the spouses could deal with custody and no other court will interfere.
I have referred at some length to these cases to underline the proposition that I am making, which is that I do not believe that such weight should have been attached by the Law Commission or the Government to the decision in Indyka and

that it is unfortunate that for these reasons a perfectly clear provision with regard to the domicile of the parent at the date of the marriage as being the governing factor in a case of recognition of the foreign law relating to legitimation has been departed from, or has been sought to be departed from, and at the same time a difference emerged between the statutory provisions in the 1926 Act which applied to England, and what is intended to be applied here.
I go on to deal with the actual provisions of Clause 5(2). What I am not at all sure about is that, even if the hon. Gentleman is right and he is seeking to leave this matter open, he is departing from the positive statement that the domicile of the father at the date of the subsequent marriage must be the governing factor because he wants to leave that open for the Scottish court, if so advised, to follow this English line of authority. I am not at all satisfied that he has done so. On my reading of subsection (2) the implication is clear that the domicile of the father at the date of the subsequent marriage will be the governing factor. The Clause says:
(2) Where after the commencement of this Act any person is legitimated under the law of a country or territory outside Scotland, the fact that the father of that person was at any time previous to his marriage to the mother of that person domiciled in a country or territory in which legitimation by subsequent marriage was not permitted by law shall not prevent the recognition of that person as being legitimated.
It is at least a possible interpretation of the Clause that the implication, therefore, is that he must be so domiciled at the date of his subsequent marriage. The effect of these two Amendments is to focus attention on the one thing which the Government are seeking to rule out and that is the basic common law provision that there has to be domicile both at the date of the marriage and at the date of the birth. If these Amendments are accepted, the subsection will read—to paraphrase:
Where … any person is legitimated under the law of a foreign country … the fact that when that person was born the father of that person was … domiciled in a country … which … 
That makes it clear that we are ruling out of consideration the question of the father's domicile at the date of birth and we are seeking to leave open at


least the question of whether or not his domicile at the date of a marriage is a relevant consideration.
The effect would be to clarify that position, but it would still leave in doubt the question as to whether or not the domicile of the father at the date of the subsequent marriage was the governing factor in deciding whether recognition to the foreign law should be granted. That, it seems to me, is a difficulty inherent in the whole Clause, and I am not at all sure that these Amendments get round it. They will at least draw attention to the fact, as is done in a more positive way in the English section, and as was done in a more positive way in the earlier Clause, that the domicile of the father at the date of birth is irrelevant. What we have to consider, if we have to consider it, is the domicile of the father at the date of the subsequent marriage.
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to develop these arguments at some length. It would have been difficult to make this point simply on a narrow construction of those Amendments. This was introduced at a very late stage, when I did not, with respect, think that it could be properly considered by the Committee. I am very grateful for the opportunity of making these observations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I understand the reason for the hon. and learned Gentleman's exploring this at some length and I agree that these Amendments were put down in difficult circumstances. In the long months during which we appear to have been facing one another on various Committees, this was the one occasion on which the hon. and learned Gentleman was missing when it would have been most useful, from the point of view of our discussions, for him to have been present. He has quoted at great length what I said in Committee, therefore I need not explore the reasons for this particular Clause being put in. It was because of the effects of the Indyka case that we endeavoured to put down the Clause in the normal way. The present Clause says that if by the law of the foreign country in which the father of an illegitimate person is domiciled at the time of the

marriage of his father to his mother that person is rendered legitimate, the Law of Scotland would also recognise that. But the Indyka ruling had the effect of opening up the possibility of other interpretations.
I must make it clear that the purpose of the exercise is not in any sense to try to bring Scots law into line with English law. It is to set out the Scots law of legitimation with improvements as recommended by the Scots Law Commission. In this one we did not attempt to modify, as we did in other sections.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question as to why we differed from England in the Legitimacy Act of 1926. The hon. Member said that international law developed from the Indyka case. Naturally cases have followed that but it has been taken as an important decision and is already beginning to have effect here, and it would be necessary for the English Act to be amended if it is to develop in the same way. We made these Amendments at the Committee stage in order to avoid the necessity of having to follow what might become a necessity for English law.
On the question the hon. Member put as to whether in this Clause the implication would not clearly be that domicile was still the crucial factor, certainly domicile is a factor, but in a negative sense. We say that it "shall not prevent the recognition of that person as being legitimated." That is the difference: it leaves the question open for future development. I would have thought that that would have been fairly clear.
There are one or two difficulties in these specific Amendments. I recognise that they are designed to replace the present general formula removing a possible requirement in the present law to look at the law of the father's domicile at any time previous to the marriage, with a precise formula removing the requirement to look at the law of the father's domicile at the time of the child's birth. It is possible, however, that the Amendments could have a more specific effect on the Clause.
The purpose of the subsection is this. Scots law recognises foreign legitimations per subsequens matritmonium if the "proper law" of the father provides for the child's legitimation per subsequens matrimonium, and "proper law" raises a


different difficulty not touched on by this particular Amendment. At present the Scottish courts regard the law of the country of domicile as the "proper law" for deciding matters of status of this kind. As originally drafted, the Bill required the Scottish courts to have regard to the law of domicile. But since there was the possibility that if this were left in the common law the courts of this country might get over some of the difficulties and hardships involved in a strict application of the law of domicile by having regard to some other law—for example, the question of nationality—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the thin attendance in the House and the absence of hon. Members on the benches opposite during a discussion of important Scottish matters, I beg to draw attention to the fact that fewer than 40 Members are in the Chamber.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: I was saying, before we were interrupted in that extraordinary way, that we felt that if the matter were left in the common law rather than in the statutory law the courts of this country might get over some of the difficulties and hardships involved in a strict application of the law of domicile. Therefore, questions of nationality and matters of status could arise. To get over the difficulty, we amended the Bill in Committee.
I recognise the difficulty of removing the statutory requirements, but the question which then arises is: what is the "proper law" of the father at what time? Is it at the time of the marriage, at the time of the birth or even at the time of conception? The father might move from country to country so that his "proper law" might change between these events. If one "proper law" provided for legitimation and the other did not, would the Scottish courts recognise the child as legitimated or not?
The present Scots law clearly requires the Scottish courts to have regard to the father's "proper law" at the time of the marriage. But it may also require the courts to have regard to the father's

"proper law" at the time of the child's birth, or, more doubtfully, the child's conception, and to refuse to recognise the child as legitimated unless the "proper law" at each of those times provides for its legitimation. The purpose of the subsection, following what is done for domestic legitimations in Clause 1 and the recommendation of the Law Commission, is to establish for the future that these doubtful requirements regarding consideration of the "proper law" at the time of birth or conception will no longer apply. The Scottish courts will have regard only to the father's "proper law" at the time of the subsequent marriage.
I accept that the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands may have wished to make the point, as he did to some extent, that, if what we are going is to remove the possible requirement that the courts should look at the "proper law" at the time of birth, we should say so instead of using the general phrase
any time previous to the marriage".
We felt that the Opposition's Amendment should be resisted because it did not remove the possible requirement about time of conception. It may be that their view is correct, but I think that there would be agreement that it should not exist in future.
The only question is whether the requirement has sufficient spectral existence to make it wise to ensure that it does not haunt the courts in future. The Government think that it has. They stand on the fact that the Law Commission felt it necessary to refer to it. Therefore, it is desirable to make sure by removing it. The sub-section as drafted does this, but the Amendment does not.
With this brief explanation, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) will accept the Clause as it stands and will withdraw what I regard as a probing Amendment.

Mr. Wylie: I have heard it suggested that the common law in Scotland might require domicile at the date of birth, but I have never heard it suggested that domicile at the date of conception was seriously taken as a factor governing recognition of the foreign law.
This is a matter for the Minister to decide and he has taken a decision. Where a section reads, as this does, that the


domicile at a certain date prior to the marriage is not to be relevant, there is a statutory implication—and I am not sure that the courts would not put this construction upon it—that that means domicile at the date of the marriage, which is in accordance with existing common law principles. The difficulty is that if, contrary to what I have said, the Scottish courts move away from domicile—I do not think they are likely to do that—to some other criterion in divorce or custody matters, for example, such as residence or nationality, none the less their hands would be tied in legitimation proceedings by the terms of the section.
A matter of this complexity is not something to be developed at this time of night. It is not for the Opposition to take upon themselves responsibility for this kind of a change. I have listened to what the Minister has said. I am not satisfied, but it is a matter for the Government to decide. In the light of these observations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN COMPENSATION (EGYPTIAN CLAIMS)

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move,
That the Foreign Compensation Commission (Egyptian Claims) (Amendment) Rules Approval Instrument 1968 (S.I. 1968, No. 163), dated 8th February 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be withdrawn.
My hon. Friends and I have put down this Prayer for three principal reasons. First, because we wish to discover from the Solicitor-General why the Commission wants and needs these new rules or new powers. On their face they seem to be extremely far reaching. Therefore, it is right that the House should understand fully why they are necessary.
Secondly, we seek assurances from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the

new rules which this Statutory Instrument would introduce, Rule 21A and also paragraphs (5) and (6) which are to be added to Rule 38, will not result in depriving British subjects of the opportunity of claiming compensation for the seizure of their own or their predecessor's property by the Egyptian Government during the period 1956 to 1969.
As is obvious, this is a highly technical Measure and the debate is bound to be somewhat narrow. However, there is a third reason why we have caused the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come to the House tonight. I understand that this is the first occasion on which any Instrument under the Foreign Compensation Rules has been prayed against in the House. It is right that the Government should know that we on this side are vigilant in studying these many Instruments and in ensuring that the House is made aware of the reasons for them.
I will mention a little of the history of the Egyptian claims, which is indeed rather sad. It gives some idea of the number of people involved if I say that within a year of the appropriations and sequestrations in Egypt more than 8,000 British citizens are known to have been evacuated. Of those 1,160 had to be assisted with house purchase under the compensation terms, about 1,700 had to be assisted with furnishing their homes, and 1,803 were assisted with passages to Australia. That illustrates that this small and narrow Order deals with a lot of intensely human cases. The losses were suffered, though the compensation provided is of some assistance, were great indeed, and I think that it will be for the convenience of the House to state the manner in which the Commission dealt with these losses.
Broadly, there were two categories, those assets which were Egyptianised, namely, nationalised or confiscated, and which there was no opportunity for the British nationals concerned to get back. Secondly, those assets which were sequestrated, namely, seized for what was presumed to be a temporary period, and which were returned, though often in an extremely damaged condition. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, large sums were involved. Under the Part III claims, which are mentioned in the Order, the total valuation of the claims


made by applicants was about £65 million, and under Article 6, claims, of which there were a total of 5,300, altogether added up to a further £34 million.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the claims themselves or their size. We are amending the procedure for making claims.

Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was attempting to indicate the background to the Instrument so that it would be more comprehensible when I came to the point which you have just made. Perhaps I should just say that the compensation arrangements, of which this Order is the most recent, started with the March, 1959, Anglo-Egyptian Agreement. It was followed by the Exchange of Notes in 1962, since when there has been a further Exchange of Notes, in 1967.
I understand from the Commission that it already has disposed of about 4,000 claims. The purpose of the Order is to enable the Commission to put a term to the outstanding claims that remain, in effect it imposes a deadline. The new Rule, No. 21A says that a man's decease shall abate any claim that he or his beneficiaries might have, and the only way in which this extinction of his claim can be avoided is for the claimant specifically to assign his claim through his estate. Thereafter, according to the Instrument, unless the beneficiary produces this assignment in evidence to the Commission, and signs the original application in place of the deceased, that claim may be lost for ever.
Within limits, we can accept that. It is not unknown in the English common law for claims to be extinguished with the death of the original party. But I believe that we ought to be very careful about agreeing to the extinction of claims made by British citizens for losses suffered through no fault of their own. Perhaps I might put this in human terms. Let us suppose that I had stolen a piece of property belonging to one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's elderly relatives. Let us suppose, too, that that elderly relative had the misfortune to die before he was able to get back that property from me. I am sure that the Solicitor-General would take a very poor view of it if he were told that his claim to recover his

family property from me had been extinguished by the death of his relative.
I doubt whether it would satisfy him if the only way in which he could re-institute the claim was if his relative had specifically granted it to him, and if he then were to fill in a lot of forms from the Commission. But this is what the Rules will require British claimants for Egyptian compensation to do.
At the very least, this should not happen unless the Commission has exhausted every possibility of advising those concerned of the possible loss of claim and of what they must do still to maintain it. It should surely be the duty of the Commission, and not of the potential beneficiary, to take such steps as are necessary to warn all concerned that a claim might be lost through death.
I turn to the further provision for reviving claims once the deadline has passed. In case anyone with a claim should read this debate, I draw their attention to the operative dates. Assuming that the Rules are accepted by the House, any survivor of an applicant for compensation who wishes to continue that claim must do so right away. In three months, that is, after 4th June this year, it may be too late. Further, if a family suffers the death of someone who lost his property in Egypt, that family should promptly put in the claim to continue his suit. They will have only six months' grace: if they have not filed their claim by then, they will forfeit it altogether.
I have some questions about the three months' and six months' deadlines contained in the second paragraph of Rule 21A. It says that an application can be revived only with the leave of not fewer than two Commissioners
… who may grant or refuse leave at their absolute discretion.
I realise that there are precedents and that there may be good reasons for this, but language giving two Commissioners the right to grant or refuse leave "at their absolute discretion" is not the happiest of phrases in a British democracy. If the Commissioners have the right to give leave to an applicant, surely that power in itself should be sufficient. I should like an explanation of why this absolute discretion was specifically necessary. I do not believe that anyone should have absolute discretion unless the reason is explained to the House.
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please tell us why it is necessary for the Commissioners and the Commissioners alone to have the power either to accept or reject a late claim? Second, what kind of circumstances must they take into consideration in deciding whether or not to entertain such a claim? The House should know, if they are given absolute discretion, what sort of considerations they have in mind in exercising it. There should be some criteria so that we know what they will take into account and what they will ignore in terminating what might be someone's only remaining claim.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will also tell us, what the Rules do not tell us, namely, how these considerations should apply. The Commissioners, I believe, need guidance here.
I turn now to the powers in the latter part of paragraph (5), by which the Commission can review and I think finally terminate or settle a claim. Indeed, the Rules are intended to enable the Commissioners to bring claims to a term. Apparently this will be done—I gather that this will be the position under the new paragraph (5)—in some circumstances without the Commission needing to serve notice of its intention to do so. I cannot understand why the Commissioners should be relieved of the requirement to indicate their intention to settle a claim.
I cannot see why they should not publish this information or take such steps open to them to advise the persons concerned. Surely they should announce a intention to extinguish a British claim—that is what it may amount to in some cases—at least by inserting an advertisement in the newspapers. They should not be able to extinguish it behind closed doors and without having given any indication of what they propose to do or what they have done.
When the House provides new powers and accepts new rules which will concern many ordinary citizens—many people who have lost everything and have probably obtained a very small proportion in return by way of compensation—we should not leave them having to look up all the detailed proceedings of Parliament and themselves accepting responsibility of becoming aware of the new rules and regulations.
These are, in the main, elderly people, often unwell. Frequently the relatives of the deceased may have gone abroad. As I mentioned earlier, some may have gone to Australia. Probate may in some cases last for a very long time indeed. So in view of the three and six months' deadlines, the Commission itself should accept the responsibility of advising all concerned. The Instrument should not simply leave it to the individual whose circumstances could be difficult, to have to come forward in all cases. I therefore ask the Solicitor-General to indicate to the Commission that there is great concern about this matter and that the House expects it to take the onus of responsibility.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The Instrument is unfortunate, largely for the reasons so ably given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). Hon. Members may recall that I have a personal interest in this matter, having raised two Adjournment debates and asked many Questions in the last 10 years on the subject of Egyptian compensation, largely because a number of my friends and some relatives are directly concerned. I will do my best to stay in order, despite the narrow terms of the Instrument, although some of the rules must be interpreted in relation to what has gone before.
New Rule 21A entitled "Death of Applicant" states:
On the death of an Applicant his application is abated as regards any claim not determined before his death unless the claim survives to a joint Applicant.
It goes on in paragraph (2) to point out that
… an abated applicant may be revived by the personal representative of the deceased Applicant …
and refers to the signing of the application form. I do not think that anybody need object to that because it is the procedure now being followed. Later, paragraph (2) refers to:
… the expiration of 6 months from the date of the deceased Applicant or 3 months from the date of the coming into operation of this Rule …
It goes on to say that after that period of time an application can
… be revived only with the leave of not less than two Commissioners…
and they are given absolute discretion.
It is in this connection that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds raised two important issues. The first was the question of the six-months' deadline. One must here consider the historical background to the Instrument to prove that the six-months' period is far too short. The whole question of compensation arose out of the Suez incident way back in 1956, but I remind the Solicitor-General that in the following year the House was told that the rights of British subjects to compensation were positively safeguarded because there was £108 million of blocked Egyptian sterling in this country which would not be released until the rights of British citizens to compensation were agreed between the two Governments. In 1959 came the first agreement, and it released all that blocked sterling less that paid into the compensation fund.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must limit his remarks to the very narrow Instrument that we are discussing. He cannot discuss compensation in general.

Mr. Wall: I am trying to show this background relates to a period of six months referred to in the Instrument. If we look briefly at the history of the whole question of compensation to which the Instrument relates, that will, I hope, prove to the House that six months is far too short a period. I am trying to prove that since 1956, in a period of 12 years, we still have not elucidated these claims, yet some are now to be extinguished in six months. I shall attempt to do this as briefly as possible and I am sure that you will call me to order if I go outside the scope of the debate. I shall not go into details.
The first agreement was reached in 1959, and before the agreement could be implemented, in 1961, much of the property some of which we are concerned with in this instrument, was resequestrated by the Egyptian Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not without sympathy with the general line which the hon. Member wishes to pursue but he cannot pursue the general issue on this Instrument, which deals with the narrow point, as he knows as well as the Chair does what happens if the applicant is deceased.

Mr. Wall: May I then say, Mr. Speaker. that it has taken 12 years for some of these claims to come forward and some are still not dealt with; yet we are asked to extinguish certain claims within six months. The period stated in Rule 21A (2) is far too short. We are dealing in some cases with substantial sums and there is no safeguard to the decision of the Commissioners. The Statutory Instrument lays down quite clearly that it is at the sole discretion of the Commissioners whether to grant or refuse leave. There should surely be some appeal. The Commissioners are given very great power. Many of these applicants reside in different parts of the world. I have letters from Switzerland, America, South America and Australia. It may be that they do not know that the persons concerned have died. The facts may not have been published in newspapers and it may be virtually impossible to let those concerned know the facts.
Six months is a very short period; I should have thought a year should be the very minimum. I appreciate that we cannot amend a Statutory Instrument such as this, but I hope that the Solicitor-General will assure us that the Commissioners will interpret this regulation very widely indeed and very generously. I know of a number of cases which have been delayed for many months. That is not the applicants' fault but became inevitable because of the actions and reactions of the Egyptian Government in resequestrating property.
Under Rule 38 in paragraphs (2), (5) and (6), in contrast to the rule we have been discussing, no time limit is laid down. The period is virtually as the Commissioners see fit. It says that the Commissioner may review
without serving any notice of intention to review, or may, if they think fit, by order …
The Commissioners can act immediately. That seems to be in strange contrast to the previous Rule. I think this is dangerous. I like it as little as I like the first Rule we have discussed. Here I want to ask if we are discussing something which is purely theoretical, or has it some substance? Is there still sufficient money in the fund to pay the claims we are debating? I understand that, according to the Foreign Compensation Commissioners, the fund at the moment


amounts to £34,500,000 of which £28,500,000 has been paid in claims. I understand that only some £6 million is left.
According to the Foreign Compensation Committee, 2,000 claims are still outstanding. We may be engaged in a very theoretical argument, but I would lake assurance from the Solicitor-General when he winds up that compensation called for under the Rules we have been discussing will be met, and that the £6 million is sufficient to cover the 2,000 outstanding claims, on which I have some doubts. He will recall that most of the claims which we are discussing are for compensation for damage to property which was sequestrated by the Egyptian Government. What about damage to property which was re-sequestrated by the Egyptian Government under Proclamation 138 in 1961?

Mr. Speaker: We are concerned with claims where the applicant has died. The hon. Member is, I think, aware of this.

Mr. Wall: To come back to the details of Rule 38, I suggest that the person whom the Commission may appoint to represent the estate of the deceased under the Rule should be authorised also to receive any increase in a previous award which may be payable as a result of such a review. A case in point is where the administrator of the estate has died, having distributed all the assets, and where, on review, an increase has been made in the original award. The Commission would not pay this unless a grant were obtained, and the cost of obtaining a grant would be more than the increased award. May I suggest that, where small sums are involved, the Commission should have discretion to pay out to the recipient under the Rule. This is perhaps a broad interpretation of the Clause which I hope would be justified.
May I sum up by saying that compensation has been under discussion for 12 years. Many people still have not had their claims met. Some property has only just been released. The Instrument we are discussing in some ways makes it more difficult for the applicant. In certain circumstances he needs fuller information, and he has a very short

period in which to file the necessary documents. Therefore, although the Instrument will make the life of the Foreign Compensation Commission easier, it could make life more difficult for some applicants.
I hope that we can have a clear assurance that the terms of the Order will be interpreted as widely and as leniently as possible by the Commission, bearing in mind our objection to the six months period and the great power given to the Commission to accept or to refuse without the right of appeal.

9.43 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radelyffe: Those hon. Members who have been in the House for some time, as have my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and myself, will recollect the debates which have taken place during the last ten years about this very complex issue. Although the Prayer is rightly on very narrow grounds, to keep within the rule of order, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he replies for the Government will not assume, because the debate is technically on narrow grounds, that it does not affect a great many people, or that there is not a very big human element in what we are discussing and in the details of the Order against which we are Praying, because this is not so.
There is all the technical difficulties, of which this is the end product, of British subjects in Egypt who had their property or assets either Egyptianised, sequestrated or re-sequestrated. This has caused a difficult tangle, and long hours have been spent trying to sort it out. Many applicants got nothing, though some got something, and I would pay tribute to the Commission for the way in which it has tried to deal with this very complicated matter. It has been approached in an extremely humane fashion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hate to appear ungenerous in preventing the tribute which the hon. Gentleman wishes to pay, but it is out of order on this Prayer.

Sir C. Mott-Radelyffe: I bow to your Ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker. But, with the greatest respect, I was about to say that I thought that the Commission


had dealt with hardship cases in a very humane way, but that I am not sure that the Order enables it to go on dealing with them in the same manner. I was coming on to the case where the claimant dies and, with great respect, I would have thought that that was in order.
As regards a claim which is extinguished on the death of the applicant, under Rule 21A there is a period of six months in one case and three months in the other. I must ask the hon. and 'earned Gentleman, who has considerable experience and for whom we have a high regard, whether he thinks that a period of three or six months is fair. After all, the Inland Revenue, with all its resources, is roughly two and a half years behind in computing Capital Gains Tax and will be about four years behind in trying to sort out the nonsense of Selective Employment Tax, which are simple matters compared with these cases, because the rules are well known.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) said, many claimants live abroad. Others may have changed their addresses many times in the last 10 years. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman quite certain that the Commission has an up-to-date list of addresses?
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say how many claimants are still left who might be involved in this Order? Then, what steps is he proposing to take to notify claimants about the very short time available in the light of this Order, that their claims could still be valid in the unhappy event of their death? Hon. Members have a great many facilities behind them. The hon. and learned Gentleman has a panoply of law officers behind him. However, it is not easy even for us to sort out such a complicated Order as this. How, in three or six months, can the beneficiaries of an old man who may have moved abroad, who may be living in the Channel Islands, or who may have gone for a holiday with relatives say even in India, catch up on all this paraphernalia?
My hon. and learned Friend must be fair and tell us why there is some magic in the three-month and six-month periods. Whatever view we may have

of the origin of the Egyptian claims, those who suffered through no fault of their own should be entitled to fair treatment and clear information on a technical subject which may well affect their beneficiaries.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Walters: I intervene briefly to make two points. As has been emphasised, and as you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this is a very narrow Instrument. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) has, I believe, so rightly said, while it is a very narrow Instrument, it is one which covers a wide spectrum of human feelings and considerable suffering. Having studied the Instrument and having heard the excellent speech in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) introduced the Prayer, I would like to emphasise that it really should be encumbent on the Commissioners to make known to the people who may be affected, that a claim will lapse unless they follow the procedures which are being laid down by this new Rule. Particularly bearing in mind its restrictive aspects, namely, that after only six months from the date of the death of an applicant, or three months from the coming into operation of the Rule, an application may be revived only with the leave of the two Commissioners who may grant or refuse leave "at their absolute discretion".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has pointed out, this absolute discretion which is vested in the two Commissioners is not one which, from a Parliamentary point of view, is entirely satisfactory or attractive. I hope that in his reply the Solicitor-General will deal with this point specifically. Of course, at the end of the day a great deal depends on what good will exists, and I would only say, having recently returned from Egypt, that one of the few encouraging aspects in the Middle East is the greatly improved feeling between that country and Britain. I hope that against this new climate of opinion the rights of British nationals will be protected and upheld. We are waiting to hear from the Solicitor-General how these rights are to be protected or improved in regard to the points that have been specifically raised tonight.

9.53 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): This is an important matter and is true that we are dealing here with a subject in which very human factors arise and where any proper approach to the problem involves the most careful consideration of that aspect. I am grateful both to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) for the manner in which he has raised this, and to the other hon. Gentlemen opposite who have dealt with it in such an understanding and helpful way.
The background of this matter is that the Instrument which it is prayed to annul approves Rules made by the Foreign Compensation Commission which have the effect, first of all, of abating claims on the death of an applicant unless there is a surviving joint applicant, and then of enabling abated claims to be revived by the deceased person's representative within six months of the date of death or three months of the Rule coming into operation, whichever is the later; and thereafter, after the six months' period has expired, by leave o two or more Commissioners; and to enable the Commission to review provisional determinations of claims of deceased applicants where no personal representatives have come forward. A similar Instrument was made on the same date, Statutory Instrument 1968 No. 164, in respect of other than Egyptian claims. No Prayer has been laid against that Instrument. I mention that only to show the possibly anomalous situation which would arise if this Instrument were annulled.
The Foreign Compensation Commission was set up by the Foreign Compensation Act of 1950 to register and determine claims in respect of losses to British property, rights and interests resulting from measures taken by foreign Governments, and to distribute compensation funds made available by those Governments under agreements with Her Majesty's Government.
A considerable amount of work still remains over Egyptian claims. Under the 1950 Act, the Lord Chancellor appoints the Commissioners, who consist of a chairman, a vice-chairman and five members, all legally qualified. I mention that because the qualification and status

of these Commissioners is of considerable importance when one considers how this affair is being administered and what powers the Rules grant.
Orders in Council give the Commission jurisdiction to register and determine claims and to distribute the funds. It makes its own rules for procedure, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor—

Mr. Wall: The hon. and learned Gentleman has twice mentioned funds. Can he satisfy us that there are sufficient funds to meet these claims?

The Solicitor-General: I think that there will be, if there is not now, a sufficiency under the existing law.
Until these Rules were laid, there was no provision regulating the procedure when an applicant for compensation died before his claim was adjudicated. It may be thought that that was a defect in the system. I would have thought that, while taking into account the importance of every considerateness for the treatment of these claims, some kind of winding up procedure, some fair and just method, was desirable. The practice has been for the Commission to mark the case papers "abated by death" and to treat the claim as revived only on the production of a grant of probate or letters of administration or confirmation in the United Kingdom and by the executor or administrator counter-signing the application form originally signed by the deceased.
The Commissioners observed no time limit for the revival of claims and the effect was that a last-minute application to revive an abated claim might delay final distribution of the funds for a considerable time. The need for provisions to come into effect on the death of persons interested in proceedings is recognised in our domestic law in the procedures of both the Supreme Court and the county court. This Instrument attempts to put into effect an analagous provision with like purposes. In principle, it is desirable that this should be done, but it must be remembered that the proceedings before the Commission differ markedly from those in the ordinary courts, particularly in a relevant respect—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Foreign Compensation and on the Order of the Day relating to the Clean Air Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

Question again proposed.

The Solicitor-General: I was putting to the House that the difference between the matters with which the Commission has to deal and the matters with which the courts have to deal where a claimant is deceased has a bearing on the kind of requirement suggested by hon. Members opposite, that is, the question of notifying parties of their rights. It is an important aspect of the matter. Whereas in civil proceedings in our courts information about the death of a party normally comes from other parties to the suit, in the cases with which the Commission is concerned that cannot happen, because there are no other parties. This is a real and practical point of distinction.
In many cases applicants live and are domiciled abroad, and news of the death is less likely to reach the Commission than would be the case if it were an ordinary court. That is the reason for the need for the substantive provisions in Amending Rule 2(1). I emphasise that because I believe that there is a real difficulty facing the Commission in these cases of ascertaining what the event is, who are the persons affected, and to whom, if any process of notification were desirable in theory, notification should be directed.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I have been trying to follow the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If there is the difficulty, which I accept, of information about the death of a claimant living abroad reaching the Commission, surely it is an argument above all others for having a period much longer than six or three months? The Solicitor-General is advancing the very argument we have been advancing against Rule 21A in the Instrument.

The Solicitor-General: I shall deal later with the question of the six months.
The need for the new Rule 38(6) in Amending Rule 2(2) is also due to these circumstances. The procedure of the Commission provides first for a preliminary determination and then for a review. An applicant may die after the

preliminary determination and before the review. It is the Commission's practice to give notice of intention to review and of any proposal to disallow or reduce the amount of the claim allowed at the preliminary determination. It is desirable to guard against any suggestion that a notice sent to the last known address of an applicant who is dead—unknown to the Commission—is not good service.
It may be urged that because of the time it has taken to determine the Egyptian claims deaths are likely to have occurred, and that it is unfair in these circumstances to put additional difficulties in the way of those representing the estates of deceased applicants. That factor should be borne in mind.
The Instrument relating to the Egyptian claims was made in April 1959. Considerable difficulty has been encountered in adjudicating some claims because of the unco-operative attitude of the Egyptian authorities, the necessity of withdrawing the Commission's representative in Egypt owing to the political situation, and similar matters. Seventy-four Egyptian claims have been marked "abated" and not revived. This is a very large number compared with the claims affected by losses sustained in Hungary and Roumania.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the learned Solicitor-General cannot go any further than the Instrument. What is fair for one side is fair for the other.

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the difficulties raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) were being borne in mind. But it is not enough to do that. What does the Commission do? What we are asking is not just that it will accept all the difficulties. We are pressing it to tell those still alive to make proper provision in their wills so that their successors shall be able to continue their claims. Surely that is not too much to ask.

The Solicitor-General: Under the heading of what the Commission can do, I would say that what is provided here is that, on the death of an applicant, the application, unless there is a revived joint


application, abates. The abated application may be revived by the personal representative who proves such representation. After six months from the death of the applicant, an application may be revived only with the leave of two or more Commissioners.
I come now to the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor—the sufficiency or otherwise of the six months' period. It is not as if we are arguing about a period on the expiry of which a claim is extinguished. This is the heart of the matter. If there was any possibility of the extinction of a claim at the expiry of a period as short as six months, I would feel a great deal of sympathy with the critics. But that is not the provision of this Instrument. What happens is that at that point, when the six months have expired, there is, by this Instrument, required to be the leave of the Commissioners before it can be revived. That is a very different thing from a once-for-all extinction of a right. I ask the House to bear that in mind.
That would be the substance of my defence of the six-months' provision, and put it to the House as a substantial point. The Commissioners, who are to determine at the end of a six-months' lapse whether a claim is going to be revived are, as I have indicated, qualified men, lawyers, appointees of the Lord Chancellor, and they can be relied upon because of their background and status to deal fairly with these matters. It would not be right for me to seek to draw up a category of criteria which would be regarded as appropriate to apply, but, of course, the Commission is well able to weigh the factors which may explain delay beyond a period of six months in bringing to its notice the death of an applicant and the appointment of personal representatives. They will have to have regard to these factors as practical men, a id I suggest that the right way of dealing with the problem is to place reliance upon the Commission in the fashion which this proposal does.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: We are not getting down to the core of this. I am not a lawyer but the Solicitor-General is. Could he indicate for my benefit, and I suspect for the benefit of a lot of hon. and not learned Members on both sides of the House, what sort of circumstances could there be which would render a

claim perfectly valid during the lifetime of a claimant, invalid in the judgment of the two Commissioners, who appear to have an absolutely undisputed discretion, after six months or nine months or a year, when the claim was put in by the beneficiary?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman, whose fairness in controversy I have come to recognise over the years, will recognise the difficulties that one is in if one is invited to deal with hypothetical cases. It is a real difficulty. What I am suggesting is that when a period of time of as much as six months elapses, then it is entirely appropriate for a body like the Commission to have special regard to anything in the character of an endeavour to revive a claim. It will not be unsympathetic or hostile, it will merely take account—and that was why I mentioned that they are qualified and experienced men and appointed by the Lord Chancellor—of that fact as a relevant circumstance, that this amount of time at least has passed and in the circumstances it is as well, because the Instrument does not put it higher, that they should have the opportunity of checking and investigating and approving.
I cannot pursue that point much further, save to suggest to the House that on the whole this is not unreasonable. I place my reliance in defending this provision in the Statutory Instrument upon the point I made earlier, namely, that we are not at the end of six months having anything to do with the extinction of the claim—we are only taking that period as a period at the expiry of which a proper safeguard should apply.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: With the greatest respect, the claim is extinguished on death. At the end of six months it can only be revived with the discretion of the Commissioners. There is no question of it being extinguished, it abates with the death of the applicant. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not dealt with that point.

The Solicitor-General: I do not know if we want to split hairs on the difference between "extinction" and "abatement". If there has been an abatement the thought behind the Instrument is that if as many as six months have expired, then it is not unreasonable that there should be a reference to the Commission before


revival. That is all. This would be considered sympathetically, fairly and reasonably by the Commission.
The point that remains for me to deal with, among the serious points brought forward by the other side of the House, is as to whether or not the Commission can do anything further than is proposed to notify persons concerned, because that is what it comes to—persons who may be personal representatives—of their rights. All that I can say in that connection is that in the world of practical affairs it will be an extraordinarily difficult thing for the Commission to do.
There again the same perfectly valid consideration applies. If, after the expiry of the period, there was a final extinguishment of a right to compensation, then indeed it might be appropriate to resort, even in the most difficult circumstances, to some fairly elaborate process—because it would have to be elaborate—of notification. But that is not the situation here, and the practical difficulty that would confront the Commission in learning of the death of an applicant living in any part of the world and, not only that, but in ascertaining additionally what was the development of his affairs on his decease, is a very real obstacle in the way of any procedure by way of notification by the Commission. As I say, it might be necessary to resort to some elaborate procedure to overcome that difficulty if, during the period, there was a final extinguishment of a claim; but when that factor is not present it is quite appropriate, I suggest, that the order take the form it does.

Mr. Wall: In view of all these difficulties both as regards notification and time, and in order that justice may be seen to be done, as I have no doubt it will be done, would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider a final appeal to the Minister in the event of a disputed case.

The Solicitor-General: I do not think I can answer that question affirmatively. I am satisfied with the fairness of this provision as it stands and I think there must and probably should be reliance upon the Commission in this matter.
The considerations that I have put forward as applying to the first part of this Statutory Instrument apply in like measure to the rest of it because the In

strument goes on to provide that if an applicant dies and no grant of representation has been produced, the Commission may review the provisional determination of a claim without serving notice, or may by order appoint some person to represent the estate. This again is designed to ensure that no case goes by default. This is a provision which has the express object and effect of doing justice to applicants, to people who have suffered loss.
Here again, I suggest that the proper course is to place dependence on the discretion and fairness of the Commission. That element is fundamental to this whole procedure: I do not conceal that for a moment. In this procedure there is the greatest dependence upon the Commission, and I feel that the House need have no anxiety on that score. Hon. Members can be confident that the Commission will treat these matters with care and consideration, and the more so because of the opinions that have been ventilated in the House tonight on this important issue.
I trust that, bearing all these facts in mind, the House will determine not to annul this Instrument.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: rose—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is usual for hon. Members to intervene before the Minister has replied.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I have followed the debate with great care, particularly the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). I do not think that the Solicitor-General has given anything like an adequate reply to the points raised in all sincerity from this side of the House.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Having raised this matter in, I hope, a non-contumacious and serious fashion, we expected from the Solicitor-General a more serious reply to our points. He did his best, and, as we all know, his best can be very good, but he did not deal with one or two points, which the House will regret.
There is, first, a very practical point. If there is difficulty in tracing those who might be able to continue a claim after


the decease of their relatives, what is so difficult about the Commission now advising all those still alive whose claims it has entertained that, should they die before their claims are settled, they should ensure that their will contains a grant of their claim to their possible inheritors and advising them of the procedures to be followed within the three or six months period so that difficulty does not arise? I cannot see why the Commission should not send out a simple letter, following the passage of this Instrument, advising all concerned what has happened. The Solicitor-General did not deal with that point, which concerns a matter of elementary justice.
We on this side of the House have the greatest admiration for the Commission, and anyone who has considered, as I have had the pleasure of doing in the last few days, the humanity and care which it devotes to individual cases will have no doubt about its ability and solicitude. But the fact remains that to vest in any body of fallible men "absolute discretion" is quite unlike anything else we do in this country. I am not a lawyer, but I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he can tell the House to which other body of civil servants we give absolute discretion.
It is not satisfactory for the Solicitor-General to say, "The Lord Chancellor appointed them and they are lawyers"—for that, in effect, is what he said. I can think of many people who are lawyers and who are appointed by Ministers of the Crown for whom I have very little regard. It simply is not sufficient for the hon. and learned Gentleman to use that as the basis for the belief that in all cases these determinations will be made correctly. He should tell us why absolute discretion is required for this body of men when we give it to no other.
The third point with which the Solicitor-General did not deal is that there is no requirement on the Commissioners, when, under paragraph 5, they finally terminate a claim, to serve any notice of intention. For a claim to be extinguished or determined in private by a body of men with absolute discretion without any requirement that they shall notify what they are doing and give notice of their intention to review is quite wrong. This means that actions are being

taken behind closed doors without any need to indicate why they reach certain decisions within their absolute discretion or to give notice of intention and with powers to appoint some person unknown to the public, but known only to themselves, to represent the persons concerned. These are quite extraordinary powers.
While we recognise that the Commission is most careful and humane in all it does, the Solicitor-General has not told us why these extraordinary powers are given. Would he assure us that the Commission will advise all those whose claims are pending that, in the event of their decrease, this Statutory Instrument will require procedures to be adopted different from those in existence prior to its passage?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Robert Cooke.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I detect a certain note of reluctance in your voice, Mr. Speaker, in calling me. However, I have no intention of making a speech at this stage. I merely comment that this is exempted business and there is nothing in our procedure to prevent the Government giving a more adequate reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) who asked reasonable questions from the Despatch Box. We are prepared to wait until the Government give us reasonable replies. I add my protest to those of my hon. Friends.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Question put and negatived.

AGRICULTURE

Mr. Elystan Morgan discharged from the Select Committee on Agriculture; Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

ESTIMATES

Mr. Urwin discharged from the Estimates Committee; Mr. Macdonald added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies discharged from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments; Mr. Albert Booth added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

Orders of the Day — CLEAN AIR BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28th March]:
That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Question again proposed.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps in a slightly more congenial and relaxed atmosphere we can pass to this business. In view of the exemption proposed by the Government and accepted by the House we can deploy our arguments at leisure, though I hope at not too great length, in exploring the mind of the Government as to why this special privilege is being extended to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) relating his Private Member's Bill.
I have nothing against the hon. Member for Buckingham and, for all I know, I have nothing against his Bill; but I have considerable reservations about giving special facilities to a Private Member's Bill when I see so many other worthy Measures attempting to proceed through the House and falling victim to the many ups and downs of our procedures. I am not sure why the hon. Member should be singled out, but I hope that by the end of this discussion we shall discover the reason.
I am sure that we are all in favour of clean air. We want cleaner air, cleaner food, cleaner books and cleaner newspapers. But how to do it and whether the House should give special facilities in particular cases is a matter of some doubt.
There are already a considerable number of Amendments down for the Standing Committee stage of the Bill and we are now asked to give facilities for the Bill to come back and be considered in Committee of the whole House. Before giving our vote in this matter we should consider whether the Amendments which we are asked to consider in the House, because presumably they will be the same as or similar to those in the Standing Committee, are of a wrecking or obstructive nature, are of a worth-while and exploratory kind, or are perhaps inspired by the Government. On looking through

them I think all will agree that they are a varied selection coming from a wide variety of sources. One particularly, new Clause No. 3, would appear to be directly at the inspiration of the Ministry of Transport—

Mr. Speaker: We are not in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House on the Clean Air Bill. The hon. Member can argue only why the Bill should not be taken in Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Cooke: I just wished to acquaint the House, if it was not already acquainted, with the fact that there are a large number of Amendments, with which the House would be likely to be faced if it allowed the Bill to go to Committee of the whole House, as the Motion asks that it should. I will not, of course, go any further into the nature of the Amendments, except to say that they are not all of a constructive kind by any means. I see that the last line of my notes says we could not possibly discuss them now, and I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
However, we are entitled to know why we are being asked to take the Bill in Committee of the whole House, and whether the same situation would occur in Committee of the whole House as would have occurred in the Standing Committee, because it would have been a Standing Committee of private Members on a Private Member's Bill. I think we are entitled to hear from the Patronage Secretary, whom I see in his place—or his deputy whom I see beside him, with a number of other Ministers—whether they would propose to allow the Bill facilities on the Floor of the House and in Committee of the whole House, and whether the Whips will be on or off. I think we are entitled to an answer before we go any further with our proceedings. Will there be a free vote of private Members participating, or is this to be an occasion when the Government take over a Measure, put on the Whips, and see that the Bill gets through because of their admittedly dwindling but still substantial majority? I pause for a moment in the hope that the Patronage Secretary or his deputy will leap to his feet to give us an answer to that question.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): I can give an answer to the hon. Gentleman, I think fairly reasonably. The Government are not concerned with the merits or demerits of the Bill. Their reasons for looking rather warmly on the Motion are primarily reasons which I would hope o give in a short while.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend speaking as Member for Deptford, as Patronage Secretary, as Chief Whip, or Deputy Leader of the House?

Mr. Silkin: I think I may be allowed to say that on this occasion I was asked in my capacity as Patronage Secretary, not in my capacity as Deputy Leader of the House.

Mr. Cooke: I am sure we would ask the right hon. Gentleman in any one of his many capacities in order to get the answer we require. He said he was looking warmly on the Motion. He looks warmly on almost everything we ask him. I have never seen him scowl in the House, though sometimes he seems to be the victim of the wiles and influences of his colleagues, and some rather unpleasant things have happened as the result of his actions in the House, though perhaps he did not intend them to be so, when some of us have found our speeches or debates truncated as the result of his activities. At any rate, I am delighted to hear that I have succeeded in my intervention and to know we are going to have an explanation from the Deputy Leader of the House or the Patronage Secretary or the right hon. Member for Deptford.
There is only one last observation I want to make. It would appear that this Motion is put down late at night on the last day before a well-earned Recess when it might possibly have slipped through unnoticed by the House, and perhaps it is the intention of the Government that the further proceedings on the Bill should slip through unnoticed. I do not know. We should like to know whether it is really a Government Bill, because it would be helpful to know whether the Government will in future produce a series of "certificated" Private Members' Bills, so, if a private

Member who was low on the list chose to take a beatifully drafted Bill from a Government Department, he would be assured of Government help. This might result in many worthy Measures reaching that Statute Book, but it might mean that the Government got their business through in the guise of Private Members' Bills, to which, no doubt, my hon. Friends would object. At least we would know where were were. The present system, with some Bills smiled upon and some frowned upon, is unsatisfactory.
I should be out of order in reading out a long list of Measures which I hope would receive Government help, but if this one is to be so favoured, why not that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) dealing with areas of special scientific interest? Why not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that he would be out of order in reading out or referring to these other Measures.

Mr. Cooke: Even fortified by that assurance that it would not be out of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not do so, because I have a list of about a hundred, and do not want to weary the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member misheard me. I said that he was quite right in saying that he would be out of order in referring to these other Bills.

Mr. Cooke: I will only add, then, that there is a Bill of mine to which I hope that the Government will give as much help as they have given to this one.
I hope that we will have this system of certificated Bills, which has been done unofficially before. On one occasion, I drew sixteenth place in the list and some of my legal friends assured me that if I took up something to do with fatal accidents—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is still out of order.

Mr. Cooke: So even a retrospective reference is out of order.
The whole matter of Private Members' Bills is a bit of a sham and it would help if the Government came clean and


said whether this will be a Government Bill or not, because we should like to know.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: I know nothing of certificated Bills and this Measure was not suggested to me by the Patronage Secretary or anyone else in the Government. I represent a constituency with considerable air pollution problems. Buckingham and North Bucks is the centre for fletton bricks and there is a major works in my constituency. There is the prospect of the new city of Milton Keys and the problems of water pollution and housing provision for London, all of which are causing considerable deterioration in my constituents' quality of life. This is why I chose this subject for a Bill.
I am extremely sorry that the Opposition have, for weeks, been blocking this Measure by procedural means, having regard to the fact that the Clean Air Act, 1956, for which London is extremely grateful because it brought all the smogs and fogs to an end, was an all-party Measure. So is this Bill, yet, for some inexplicable reason, week after week, although Her Majesty's Official Opposition assured me that they had no objection to the Bill, they have nevertheless put up stooges like the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) to come and shout "Object".
These are deplorable tactics, and then to come here, like a little quisling, and read the lessons to the Patronage Secretary is unbelievable—

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: On a point of order. Is it in order to call an hon. Member a quisling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The word "quisling" is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.

Mr. Maxwell: I withdraw it unreservedly.

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Mr. Maxwell: I will give way when I am ready. In any event, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman deserves my giving way to him.
I do not consider it necessary for me to speak at great length in support of the Motion. I merely wish to point out

the various excellent reasons why it would be appropriate for the Bill to be removed from Standing Committee and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Clean air—and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bristol, West at least agrees with me about this—is a matter that commands the general good will and support of almost everybody. It is not—or it certainly should not be—a matter of party politics. It is 12 years since the Clean Air Act, 1956, came into force. One of the more memorable events which led up to that Act was the great London smog of 1952. More than any other single factor, it was that which perhaps united public opinion in a determination that something effective had to be done to ensure cleaner air in our great cities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot go into the merits of the Bill. He can only consider the desirability of removing it from Standing Committee and committing it to a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Maxwell: I am just coming to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As is well known, excellent progress has been made throughout the country, but London in particular is out ahead in the matter of smoke control and clean air. The Clean Air Act laid the basis of the progress that has been achieved in the past 12 years. It was not a harassing Measure. I merely gave effect to what everybody wanted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Member could have understood my Ruling. I said that it was not in order to discuss the merits of the Measure. He can discuss only the desirability of removing the Bill from Standing Committee and committing it to a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Maxwell: The 1956 Act had all-party support and, as a matter of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to omit those passages from his notes which refer to the merits of the Measure and to address himself to the limited Question before the House.

Mr. Maxwell: I will do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As a matter of practical Parliamentary business, it is extremely important that the Bill should not be left in Standing Committee. It so happens that the Divorce Reform Bill falls to be taken before it in Standing Committee C, and this is likely to take a long time to be considered. There is, therefore, a real risk that the Clean Air Bill might not be reached in Standing Committee. This would be a great pity and also a nuisance, since the Bill would have to be reintroduced—and, from a purely procedural viewpoint, much valuable work already done by Ministers, hon. Members and officials would either have to be done twice or at least would have to go into cold storage until we could get things going again.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I intervene merely to make it perfectly clear that, as I said, I am not against the Bill. I am against the idea of it receiving special favourable treatment. If the Patronage Secretary will say that other Bills similarly placed will get equally favourable treatment and will be smiled upon by the Government, my hon. Friends and I will feel happier about the Motion. We are, therefore, not against the Bill but the way in which it is being handled.

Mr. Maxwell: On the other hand, the Bill is eminently suitable for consideration in Committee of the whole House. Its provisions are few, clear and straightforward and it commands the widest support. It would do something that needs doing. We all agreed that when we gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading on 16th February. If we did that, why should we now run the risk of it not being reached in Standing Committee? That would indeed be an illogical fate for a short, much-needed, popular, sensible, uncomplicated Measure against which no hon. Member had a word to say less than eight weeks ago.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) said, all hon. Members are in favour of clean air. A great deal of work has been done in Parliament in the few years during which I have been an hon. Member to ensure the cleanliness of the air. However, in view of the befouling of the air in the Chamber, brought in by the hon. Member for Buck

Ingham, I urge that his Bill remain in Standing Committee.

10.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): During the past few years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have from time to time been fortunate enough to catch your eye. My speeches on those occasions have not always earned universal approbation, but at least they were brief. In my new capacity the least I can do is to endeavour to ensure that that good rule is maintained.
I think it might be helpful to remind the House of the arrangements that were made experimentally for Private Members' Bills this Session. In the past it was usual to allow 10 Private Members' Bill Fridays, six for Second Readings and four for Bills which had made greater progress. This Session the House agreed to add six further days for Private Members' Bills. This made 16 Private Members' Bill days. The House also agreed that these 16 Fridays should be divided into eight days when Second Readings have precedence and eight days when Bills which have made greater progress have precedence. A certain amount of congestion in the one Standing Committee, Committee C, where private Members' business has precedence, has resulted from this decision. This congestion has become worse congested because of the number of Bills which, against the normal run, require, or are likely to require, more than one sitting. As a result, some of the eight Fridays which should have been devoted to Bills which have made greater progress have not received the expected flow of Bills awaiting their later stages, while at the same time there is a growing queue of Bills in Committee C.
In order to help to ease this congestion, we could hardly resist the one solution which would deal with both of these problems at the same time, namely that Bills in Standing Committee C should be recommitted to Private Members' Bill Fridays. Of course, this is a matter entirely for the House. When I said that the Government look warmly upon it, I meant that they look warmly upon a Motion designed to reduce congestion among Private Members' Bills. The alternative, if the House decided otherwise, whereby even more Bills obtained


Second Reading and had no chance whatever of reaching their later stages because they would be committed to an already congested Standing Committee, seemed to us not to bear very much sense.
The experience of this Session, and it has been an experiment we have undertaken, will clearly require us to consider in respect of 1968–69 whether we should revert to the previous decision of 10 Bill Fridays and 10 Motion Fridays, or some other possible division, or whether to continue the experiment in the hope that perhaps more than one Standing Committee may be set up in which Private Members' business has precedence.

Committee upon Friday, 3rd May.

Orders of the Day — A38 ROAD (BRISTOL GLOUCESTER SECTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I wish to raise a local problem which is of importance to my constituency. Before doing that, however, may I welcome the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) to what I believe is his first appearance on the Government Front Bench, and congratulate him on his appointment? I hope that he has an extremely successful, though not necessarily a particularly long period in office. I am sure that he will do very well.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) will now appreciate that it is not out of a desire to prefer my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) against other hon. Members that the Government have supported this Motion. Indeed, in recommending my hon. Friend's proposal, I offer the hon. Member for Bristol, West and any of his hon. Friends and any of my hon. Friends the reminder that the same procedure is available to all other hon. Members.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 0.

Division No. 120.]
AYES
[10.50 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, Brian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Reynolds, C. W.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Body, Richard
Hattersley, Roy
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Booth, Albert
Howie, W.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Skeffington, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Brown, R. W. (Shorcditch &amp; F'bury)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Swingler, Stephen


Buchan, Norman
Leadbitter, Ted
Varley, Eric C.


Carmichael, Neil
MacColl, James
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
MacDermot, Niall
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Macdonald, A, H.
Whitaker, Ben


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Maddan, Martin
Whitlock, William


Dunn, James A.
Marquand, David
Winstantey, Dr. M. P.


Ellis, John
Maxwell, Robert



Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Freeson, Reginald
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)





NOES


TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Mr. Robert Cooke and Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker.

I want to raise with him a difficult matter to which no one has provided a satisfactory answer. I dare say that it is not within the capacity of any Ministry to do so. It concerns the dangers of the A38 road between Bristol and Gloucester.

It is a road which is well known to very many people. A large number of those who live in the Midlands use it when travelling to the West Country for their summer holidays. It is also a trade route of considerable importance, and has been for a very long time. At all times of the year, it is one of the most heavily used roads in the country.

The section passing through my constituency concerns particularly the stretch from Gloucester to Berkeley Road, and on it there are two distinct forms of danger. The first is one to motor traffic as a whole. The gradients of the country over which the road passes and the turns the road takes are particular and peculiar.


It is an old carriageway of historic importance and of almost immemorial age. It is difficult to see why the twists and turns have been put there, except it be for historic reasons. However that may be, this is a three-lane carriageway today and in this modern age three-lane carriageways are regarded with special anxiety. A great deal of work has been done on this road and I congratulate the Ministry, under this and previous Governments on what it has tried to do.

The local residents and I believe that a number of minor things should be done and I cannot understand why the Government do not press on with them. One thing I have been urging is that there should be passing lines over this stretch of the road indicating which line of traffic is entitled to overtake. These lines are well known on the Great North Road and other roads, being painted on the road for three-quarters of a mile. For some unexplained reason it has not been Ministry policy that these lines should be used on this section of the A38. I have seen with horror some of the most spectacular accidents on this road, caused by a vehicle impatiently moving out after following a lorry for a long time and meeting another vehicle head-on in the middle of the road. I cannot understand why these passing lines should not be as successful here, whatever the turns and gradients, as elsewhere. It was argued in a letter from the Ministry that the expense of painting white lines would be great. I was astonished by the figures given but I cannot believe, even if they are correct, that the lines would not be worth while.

The second reply, when one puts forward suggestions like this, is that very soon our troubles will be ended with the M5 and that traffic will sweep down that and we shall be left with the A.38 as a little motor road as it was in the 1900s. I do not believe this is so. Experience in other cases shows that a sort of Parkinson's Law operates and that traffic increases to fill the roads available. I believe that the M5, the arrival of which we shall welcome, but the date of which we somewhat doubt, will not substantially relieve traffic on the A38 in the long term. Traffic on the A5 is not much less now than it was before the M1 opened. This will happen again. It is a standing challenge to the archi

tects of the Ministry to see what they can do to make this road safer now and in the future.

The second danger on the road at the moment is to pedestrians, who concern me as a local representative because they are residents, and motorists may not be. We have been horrified recently by some of the tragedies on this road. In the last month there have been a number of deaths, particularly of older people. This is significant because the road is wide, the traffic fast, the lighting either nonexistent or not good. Those are the people who have not been able to cross that road in safety. Therefore, we regard the matter with particular anxiety, which I know that the Minister will share.

I now turn to local conditions on this stretch of road, and the area of Quedgeley. I understand that it is now proposed to have a dual-carriageway on this part of the road leading south out of Gloucester, and to some extent that is welcome. A dual-carriageway is necessarily agreeable to the motorist. The faster traffic can overtake the trucks, but it means that traffic goes faster. I believe that the carriageway at Quedgeley is about 33 ft. wide at present, and that in the dual-carriageway each carriageway will be 24 ft. wide. The difference is not very great. The residents will lose part of their gardens, but I am sure that they will not begrudge them for this purpose if they are contributing to real safety. But the carriageway as a whole will be substantially wider. The traffic will be faster, and I do not believe that from the pedestrian's point of view the position will be very much better than it is now. With the dual carriageway continuously carried on there will be certain local inconvenience. There will be no right turn for at least two miles through the village and environs of Quedgeley, and at the end of that distance motorists will have to turn back towards Gloucester to make a right turn.

At present there is a particular difficulty at Castle Lane, a turning towards Epney. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer this point in detail, because it is a very local matter. It is possible to turn right at Castle Lane, but it is a dangerous manoeuvre. It is a dangerous manoeuvre to do anything on the A38, but still more to turn right


At present there are no signs there. The county council says that it is safer not to put up signs showing that there is a right turn, because if it does not do so very few people will turn right. That argument cannot stand up. The only people who want to go to a rather remote village like that are those who already know that it is there—the local residents. They are the people who will turn right; no one else will do so. They are the people who are not protected by any signs showing that there is a right turn, and the other motorists will be taken by surprise. Strangers will miss it or will not wish to use it. Only the "locals" know of it and, therefore, only they run the dangers of the right turn on this fast and dangerous road. This is not a sensible policy, and I ask the Minister to look at it.

I turn to the question of Naas Lane, which is a small road leading from the R.A.F. Maintenance Unit—No. 7 M.U., as it is called. A large number of people work there. In the evening, when they come out, they wish to go on this road and turn left or right to go home. It has been the practice up to fairly recently to have a policeman on duty in the road, but after a number of near misses the police decided that it was too dangerous, and, rightly, they withdrew their man from trying to direct traffic in the middle of the road.

There are four possible courses of action. One is to do nothing, which would be the worst course. The next is to provide very good lighting at the place for the winter months. No doubt that would help. The next possibility is to provide traffic lights. I know, and I am sure that it is known to the Minister, that those in authority have suggested that traffic lights at the Naas Lane crossing would be helpful. But objection has been taken to them on the ground that the central reservation necessary to install traffic lights would take up so much space that it would constitute a new danger. I wonder whether this is sound.

On the Continent it is the case almost exclusively that traffic lights are suspended over that road without a central reservation. They are easy to see. They are rather higher than some of ours. As far as I know, there is no technical objection to this being done here. I

should like the Minister to consider having such lights at this corner, since they would be helpful.

The third proposal—and I understand that it will be proceeded with in due course—is for a roundabout, but that is very expensive and takes a long time to build. I should like to know which of these three courses of action—better lighting, traffic lights of a certain kind and a roundabout—will be adopted and when.

I understand that it has been suggested by an authority that there was, after all, an alternative route for workers coming from No. 7 M.U. in that they do not have to come out on the A38 but through Naas Lane railway crossing and out through Brookthorpe. Perhaps this has been said in jest, for it is really a bicycle track and it is surely not possible to have so many people using such a narrow lane.

I pass now to the most dangerous point in the road at present. This is the Cambridge road junction. It is further south than the other points I have mentioned and it comes after a long straight stretch of road, which is slightly downhill with a slight bend to the right and with buildings on both sides. It is not restricted and cars reach very high speeds. Motorists are tempted thereabouts to go at high speed because there is nothing to restrict them as far as they can see.

The people particularly at risk here are not motorists. If they wish to turn at this crossing, they pull off to the left, which is not in itself a dangerous manoeuvre, and others coming in over Dursley junction can see well to the right because the road bends slightly to the left and to the right. I am aware of no particular danger which could arise there for them.

The people who are at danger in this place are the pedestrians. This is a centre of a small village and they have to cross according to their normal avocations. They cannot see, in crossing from west to east to their left, traffic coming fast from the north. There are also special temptations to cross. There are two bus stops opposite each other.

Owing to the arrangements of the bus company, quite properly, the buses from Bristol and Gloucester and going on to Dursley arrive within two minutes of each other and the people coming from


Bristol have to hop across the road. Sometimes their bus is waiting for them and they must catch it. They cannot wait five minutes to cross the road. There is only a two-minute interval in the timetabling and if they miss the bus they have to wait an hour or walk. So they have to hop across sharply although they cannot see very well. It is in this wide road with fast traffic that recently two very respected friends of ours in my constituency have been cut down and killed, and this is by no means the first case.

Suggestions have been made for improvements at Cambridge. I suggested in a Question to the Minister that there should be a footbridge but this is probably not the best solution. A better suggestion would be to have an island in the middle of the road so that at least pedestrians could take it in two hops. Another suggestion is that the bus stop should be slightly altered, so that pedestrians do not have to cross the road directly at this potentially dangerous point, and that the bus timetables should be altered so that there is not an incentive to race across to catch a bus waiting on the other side of the road.

The real anxiety about this can be illustrated by the fact that the residents of Cambridge have got up a petition. The village of Slimbridge, which is next to Cambridge, is included in the parish. Ninety per cent. of the residents of the parish have signed the petition and sent it to me, and I will have the honour to give it to the Minister. It is not suitable for presentation to the House, because it is not in the prescribed form, but it will illustrate the deep anxiety felt by the people who are in danger.

It is especially the older people, who suffer because they are not spry enough to get across the road in time. I have conducted a bit of a campaign about the A38. This is not out of any desire to be awkward to the Minister—I have done it under different Governments. In the Stroud and Dursley area the A38 is regarded with dread and anxiety. It is a common question to ask people on which side of the A38 they live, the implication being that if one is on one side one had better jolly well stay there or it will be the worse for one.

This cutting of the community into two is not good. It cannot be maintained.

A great number of schoolchildren on the Slimbridge, or west side, of the A38 have to go to school in Dursley, and they cross the road for transport. We have to cross the road, we cannot resign ourselves to being cut off, one side from another. We await the arrival of the M5. I do not know when it will come, but I doubt whether it will alter the position.

In spite of what has been done by the Ministry there is much that could be done. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider the various proposals that I have made, and ask him to appreciate that the anxiety of local residents does not arise from a desire to chivvy or chide or be critical, but is a real anxiety for the life and limb of those who live in the area. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the matter most seriously.

11.17 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I want to thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) for his kind expressions, and for the generous way in which he has welcomed me on the occasion of my maiden speech from the Despatch Box. I want to pay a personal tribute to him for the great constituency interest that he has shown. This is evidenced by the number of Questions that he has asked on the subject and by the fact that he has initiated this debate.
In case I am accused of transforming the House into a mutual admiration society, may I express the hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel as generously towards me when I have finished my reply as he did at the beginning of his speech.
He has referred to the question of "passing lines". I can only assume that he means the double offset lines that have been tried throughout the country on something like 28 miles of three-lane highways. The Ministry has regretfully had to admit that the experiment has been a failure and has not made for safety, as was hoped. I could not promise the hon. Member to introduce any such lines.
When consideration was first given to the problem of how to deal with traffic between Gloucester and Bristol it was decided that the provision of a new dual


carriageway was preferable to the dual-ling of the A38. This will materialise in a few years, in the shape of the M5.
In spite of the doubts which the hon. Gentleman has expressed, I am certain that the completion of the M5 will considerably reduce the weight of traffic on the A38. Relief to the A38 will begin to be noticeable when the M5 is opened to traffic between Strensham and Eastington at the end of 1970. Our target for completing the length between Eastington and the Almondsbury interchange with the M4 motorway is the early summer of 1971. When this connection has been made we expect about half the traffic now using the A38 between Bristol and Gloucester to transfer to the motorway. This should result in an immediate fall in the number of accidents on the A38.
To make the road safer in the meantime, and for the benefit of residual traffic after the opening of the M5, improvements have been carried out over the years where they are most necessary and, within the economic limits set by the advent of the M5, we are continuing to make such improvements. Recently the construction of dual carriageways between Gables Farm and Whitminster and a widening scheme from Claypits to Fromebridge have been completed. At Stone the visibility has been improved.
In January work started on the construction of a new roundabout near the junction with Cole Avenue with a short length of new dual carriageway to Sims Lane, and later this year the A38 between Sims Lane and Naas Lane, Quedgeley, will be improved. Towards the Bristol end of the road, in about two years time we intend to dual the length between Almonds-bury and Southmead Road, Filton.
It is clear that the measures taken on the A38 have resulted in a significant fall in the number of accidents occurring between Bristol and Gloucester. Ten years ago, in 1958, there were 263 accidents on this length. Last year, 1967, there were 169, which shows a considerable reduction. We claim that this has been due to the improvements which have been carried out. This is despite the tremendous increase in traffic volumes during those past ten years. Naturally

we hope that accidents will continue to decrease further. Although we do not anticipate the need for further substantial improvement schemes, other than those I have already mentioned, in view of the relief that the M5 motorway will provide, nevertheless we will continue to take whatever measures we consider practicable to improve safety.
The improvement of the A38 from the new roundabout scheme now under construction at the junction with Cole Avenue southwards to Naas Lane, Quedgeley, is expected to be started in September, and this will take two years to complete. We have also been able to include an improved lighting system for Quedgeley in the programme for the current financial year. Preparation of the detailed scheme will now be put in hand and every effort will be made—I stress this—to get the lighting installed, if possible, by next winter in order to ease the difficulties at the Naas Lane junction when workers from the Royal Air Force Maintenance Unit are leaving the depot. Meanwhile, with longer hours of daylight, the police traffic control at the junction has been resumed at peak hours. Eventually we hope to construct a roundabout here and investigations into a possible scheme are continuing.
Concerning the village of Cambridge, I, too, deeply regret the deaths, on Sunday, 25th February, of those two elderly people who had lived all their lives in this village. However, we have gone into great detail to see what, if anything, can be done to help pedestrians to cross the road in safety. Last week the Divisional Road Engineer met the Deputy County Surveyor, the Chairman of the County Road Safety Committee and the Chairman's Deputy for the Cambridge area on the site and a number of suggestions were discussed.
It has to be remembered that the number of pedestrians crossing the road through the village is small. During a count taken on 1st March for the 11 hours from 8 a.m. until 7 p.m., the total was 211, or 19 per hour. During a 12-hour count in June, 1965, the total was 251, or 20 per hour. If these numbers were concentrated at one point, it would be easy to deal with them, but the surveys show that this small number of people who cross the road do so over a 500-yard stretch, so that it is not an easy matter


to deal with. The numbers are well below the criteria for the provision of pedestrian crossings, or for footbridges or underpasses. If the people could all be channelled to one point, it would be easy to make provision. With these small numbers, a pedestrian crossing is not a practical proposition.
There is, of course, the question of a central refuge. Again, within the present three-lane carriageway, an isolated refuge would be completely unacceptable because, if anything, this would constitute a vehicle hazard and a further hazard to the unfortunate pedestrians on the central refuge. A point might well be made for widening the bend on the road in the village to put in a short central refuge, to give people the chance to get across the road.
There are many points that I should like to have made, but time does not permit. I assure the hon. Member, however, that we are in no way complacent about accidents, wherever they occur. The difficulty in Cambridge is to determine exactly what measures could, in practice, be effective in making it safer for pedestrians to cross the road. A dual

carriageway through the village would achieve this, but the fact must be faced that if we were contemplating a dual carriage, we should have to demolish a large part of the property in the village. I do not think that this would be acceptable to the constituents of the hon. Member.
We are well aware of the bus position, which the hon. Member has mentioned, and we are in consultation with the bus undertaking with a view to rerouting the service so that we can re-site the bus bays rather than have the dangerous situation that the stops are more or less directly opposite one another. I assure the hon. Member that all the points which he has raised are under active consideration, and we will consider any further point which he may care to put to us.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.